Hamilton v. Bank of America

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 21, 2008
• Docket: ANDcv-08-077
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-08-077 [ I.; Rr~C~~\jEO&FILED RICHARD E. HAMILTON, SR, OCT 21 2006 Plaintiff t\NDROSCOGGIN of ":~ljr:}:C~~"')R ,_~T"~, •.• ~ll.~ ("'>()IIR' ' ,~'.·.,-l

v. ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISNIISS

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

and

SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES, LLC, et aI.

Defendants

This matter came before the court on defendants' motions to dismiss the

complaint pursuant to M.RCiv.P. 12(b)(6) for lack of standing and failure to state

a claim on which relief may be granted, and alternatively, pursuant to M.RCiv.P.

19(a) for failure to join a necessary party. The court heard oral argument on

August 25, 2008.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY /BACKGROUND

On April 22, 2008, Hamilton filed a 23-page complaint with 220 separate

paragraphs. The basic allegations in the complaint are that in 2000 Hamilton's

son purchased land and a mobile home in New Gloucester, Maine, Bank of

America provided the mortgage financing to his son, his son moved to Florida in

2005, on a routine basis plaintiff checked his son's residence and provided

maintenance, and on March 12, 2008, he was locked out of his son's residence

when the locks were changed without notice by the Bank. Hamilton alleges that

he has an interest in his son's property because he spent thousands of dollars on the residence and he has thousands of dollars of equipment and tools in his son's

residence. Plaintiff further alleges that his son's mortgage was not in default

when the locks were changed

Hamilton's complaint alleges causes of action of breach of contract in

Count I, breach of contract - third party beneficiary in Count II, tortuous

interference with contract in Count III, theft in Count IV, theft by extortion in

Count V, criminal trespass in Count VI, Negligence in Count VII, negligent

misrepresentation in Count VIII, intentional misrepresentation in Count IX,

fraud in Count X, defamation (libel) in Count XI, defamation (slander) in Count

XII, false light in Count XIII, and unfair or deceptive practices in Count XIV. On

June 27,2008, the defendants Bank of America and Safeguard Properties jointly

moved to dismiss the complaint. Subsequently, Hamilton filed an amended

complaint adding as defendants Thomas Colban and David and Shelley Alley

d/b/ aD & S Properties. Hamilton did not file a motion to amend the complaint

to add these defendants until September 22, 2008. 1 Defendant Colban filed a

motion to dismiss on July 1, 2008 and an amended motion to dismiss and motion

for sanctions on July 7,2008. Defendants David and Shelley Alley filed a motion

to dismiss on June 30, 2008. On July 25, 2008, Hamilton filed a motion for

consolidation of the Androscoggin County case with the a Cumberland County

Docket No. CV-08-421, a case that according to Hamilton has 3 plaintiffs, 26

defendants, 30 counts and 608 paragraphs. Hamilton argues that the

Androscoggin case is part of the Cumberland County case and the two cases

1 This motion to amend seeks to add to the Androscoggin County civil action the allegations contained in the complaint filed in the Cumberland County civil action. That motion has not been acted on and because of the court's determination on the motions to dismiss, will not be acted on. should be consolidated pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 42. On July 28,2008, Hamilton

filed his opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for

sanctions. This order will address only the motions to dismiss and for sanctions. 2

The Bank filed an uncontroverted affidavit, attaching exhibits that include

a mortgage entered into by Richard Hamilton, Jr. with Bank of America securing

a note in the amount of $94,050 (Exhibit A), a default notice for failing to make

the July 1, 2007 and subsequent payments due on the note (Exhibit B), and three

requests to the Borrower (1) seeking verification of his income (Exhibit C), (2)

requesting additional documentation to process his request for assistance with

the default (Exhibit D), and (3) stating they had been unable to contact him and

asking him to contact the Bank about the mortgage loan (Exhibit E). The

affidavit establishes that the Notice of Default was sent to the Borrower's Florida

address because he had notified the Bank to send mail to his Florida address.

Finally, the affidavit establishes that on February 8, 2008 when the Borrower

continued not to respond to the Bank's requests and continued to be in default

under the Mortgage, the Bank asked Safeguard Properties to secure the property

which included changing the lock on the property to protect the mortgaged

premises as authorized by Section 9 of the Mortgage. 3

2 Because the defendants presented matters outside the pleadings in support of their motion, the motion to dismiss, at least in part, converted into a motion for summary judgment. M.R. Civ. P. 12(b). 3 The Bank also states in the affidavit that the Bank eventually arranged for an

inspection of the property and learned that on December 20,2007 and January 26,2008, the property was vacant and the gas and water were turned off and the property was covered by snow. Concerned with the security and risk that the property insurer would cancel the insurance, together with the failure of Richard Hamilton Jr. to respond to the Bank's inquiries, the Bank asked Safeguard to secure the property, which consisted of changing one of the locks to the property DISCUSSION

A motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Vahlsing Christina Corp. v. Stanley, 487 A.2d 264, 267 (Me. 1985). When reviewing

a motion to dismiss, this court examines the complaint "in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff and accept[s] the material facts of the complaint as

true." Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Comm'n, 2004 ME 20,

A motion to dismiss will be granted where "it appears beyond doubt that a

plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove to

support his claim." Id. (citations omitted).

A. Standing

The complaint raises various objections by the borrower's father, Richard

Hamilton, Sr., not the borrower himself, Richard Hamilton, Jr., about the Bank's

actions. To the extent that plaintiff objects to the exercise by the Bank of its rights

under the mortgage on the property conveyed to it by the borrower, the plaintiff

lacks standing because he does not own the property and he is not a party to the

mortgage with the Bank. He cannot assert the rights of his son against the Bank.

See Stull v. First American Title Insurance Co., 2000 ME 21, 745 A. 2d 975,979

("Litigants normally may not assert the rights of third parties but must

demonstrate that they have received some particularized injury in order to have

standing to raise their claim.") "The basic premise underlying the doctrine of

standing is to limit access to the courts to those best suited to assert a particular

claim." Roop v. City of Belfast, 2007 ME 32,

quotation marks omitted). While there is no set formula for determining

as authorized by Section 9 of the Mortgage. The court has not relied on these allegations in rendering this decision. standing, Roop,

at

mortgage to which Hamilton is not a party, he does not have an injury that gives

him standing. Any rights that plaintiff alleges are derivative of his non-party

son. If the son is in default of the mortgage and the Bank exercises its rights to

dispossess the mortgagor-son or foreclose on the property, the father's interests

would be terminated as a matter of law because whatever interests he had in

relation to the property are entirely derivative of the son's interests and as a

consequence inferior to the interests of the Bank granted by the son when he

conveyed the mortgage to the Bank. Plaintiff cannot seek to assert his son's

interests against the Bank because he does not have standing to do so.

B. Counts I, II and III: Contract Claims

In his first count, Hamilton asserts a claim for breach of contract, arguing

he was locked out of his son's residence when the locks were changed without

notice by the Bank and when his son was not in default. Plaintiff alleges that the

defendants breached their contractual obligation to him. In Count II he alleges

breach of his rights as a third-party beneficiary of the contract and in Count III he

alleges tortuous interference with a contract.

Plaintiff does not allege that he has any rights to his son's property that

pre-exist or are otherwise superior to the Mortgage. As mortgagee of the

property by conveyance from the plaintiff's son as owner of the property, the

Bank stands in the shoes of the Borrower in relation to all others in the world,

including the plaintiff. The exercise by the Bank of its rights under the Mortgage

are superior to any interest of the plaintiff in the property.

The Borrower was in default under Section 1 of the Mortgage because of nonpayment of installments due under the note that the Mortgage secures.

When the Borrower did not respond to the Bank's requests and the default

persisted, there was a material default under the Mortgage entitling the Bank to

exercise its rights under Section 9 of the Mortgage, including the right to protect

and secure the property by changing the locks. See Fireman's Fund Mortgage Corp.

v. ZOllicoffer, 719 F. Supp. 650, 656 (N.D. TIL 1989) (breach of a duty to make

payments is a material breach entitling the creditor to exercise the rights under

the mortgage). Therefore, Count I must be dismissed because it does nothing

more than assert the rights of the Borrower under the Mortgage against the Bank.

Count II must similarly fail because plaintiff does not allege, nor could he allege,

that he was expressly an intended beneficiary of rights under the Mortgage when

granted by his son to the Bank. Denman v. Peoples Heritage Bank, Inc., 1998 ME 12,

err 9, 704 A. 2d 411. And, Count III also fails because plaintiff's rights in the

property are inferior to the Bank's superior rights as credi tor under the

Mortgage.

C. Counts IV, V and VI: Claims of Criminal Offenses

Counts IV, V and VI all allege criminal offenses. Theft, theft by extortion

and criminal trespass are not recognized civil causes of action. A motion to

dismiss "tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint." Livonia v. Town of Rome,

1998 :ME 39, err 5, 707 A.2d 83, 85. In determining whether a motion to dismiss

should be granted, the court considers "the allegations in the complaint in

relation to any cause of action that may reasonably be inferred from the

complaint." Saunders v. Tisher, 2006 ME 94, err 8, 902 A.2d 830, 832. Even if the

court treats as admitted the facts alleged in Counts IV, V and VI, they still fail to

allege elements of a recognized cause of action against the defendants or allege fact that could entitle plaintiff to recover under any legal theory. See Brown v.

Maine State Employees Ass'n, 1997 ME 24,690 A.2d 956 (Me. 1997).

D. Remaining Counts VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV

The remaining counts similarly fail because of the absence of allegations of

acts, which, if true, would establish a claim. Count VII must be dismissed

because none of the defendants owe any duty to the plaintiff, which is an

essential element for a claim of negligence. Similarly, Count VIII must be

dismissed because defendants owe no duty to plaintiff and Counts VIII and IX

must also be dismissed there are no facts alleged of any misrepresentation by the

defendants to the plaintiff. Plaintiff does not plead facts that, if true, would make

out an action for libel (Count X), slander (Count XI), false light (Count XIII) and

unfair or deceptive acts (Count XIV).

The entry is:

Motions to Dismiss are Granted. The Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Motion for Sanctions is Denied.

Date: October 20,2008 ~.~~le~