Maine State Hous. Auth. v. Morrell

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: May 5, 2010
• Docket: CUMre-09-167
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION JOCKET NO: RE-09-167 D ,'c 1', '

MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY

Plaintiff, ORDER v. STATE OF MAINE SCOTT P. MORRELL et al., Cumberland, 55, Clerk's Office

Defendants MAY 05 2010 RECEIVED Plaintiff Maine State Housing Authori ty obtained a foreclosure judgment

in this action on February 25, 2010. Now defendant Michelle Morrell seeks relief

from the judgment under Rule 60(b) and requests mediation pursuant to Rule

93(q).

Maine State Housing Authority (MSHO) filed its foreclosure complaint on

September 8, 2009, and filed for summary judgment on December 31,2009. Ms.

Morrel1 was not represented by counsel at that time and on January 20,2010,

filed a motion to enlarge deadlines by sixty days. On January 22, 2010, the court

granted Ms. Morrell an additional thirty days rather than sixty requested. Ms.

Morrel1 did not file an opposi tion to the motion for summary judgment, and

MSf-IO obtained a foreclosure judgment on February 25, 2010, thirty-five days

after an opposition was originally due. Ms. Morrell was able to obtain counsel on

March 3, 2010, and filed these motions for relief and mediation on March 8, 2010.

"To obtain relief from a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) for

excusable neglect, a party must show (1) a reasonable excuse for her inattention

to the court proceedings, and (2) a meritorious defense to the underlying a.ction."

1 Ezell u. Lmuless, 2008 ME 139, 9r 22,955 A.2d 202,207 (citing Blltler v. D/Wnve

Scnfc)()rI, 2002 ME 41, <]I 17, 791 A.2d 928,932). Parties appearing pro se are not

afforded any "special consideration" or lenity under the rules. Tri. (citing Tnlll7nl7

v. Browne, 2001 ME 182, <]I 11, 788 A.2d 168, 171). Ms. Morrell claims that she was

not notified that her motion to enlarge was granted, or that the deadline was

extended by thirty days instead of sixty. For this and other unspecified reasons

she reCluests relief under Rule 60(b) and asks leave to file her opposition to

MSHO's motion for summary judgment.

The Law Court has clearly held that "inexperience with the judicial

system" is not a "good cause" meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Clltler 71.

Dowllcnsl !\i[orlgnge Corp., 2009 ME 84, 9r 15, 976 A.2d 929, 934. I f Ms. Morrell did

not receive notice that her motion to enlarge the deadline had been granted, her

<1s.c;umption should have been th<1t an opposition was due on the origin<1]

deadline of ]<1nuclfy 21, 2010. Instead she assumed without checking th<1t the

court h<1d gr<1nted her the full sixty days reCluested. Ms. Morrell's mist<1ken

<1ssumption f<111s short of the good cause reCluired for relief from a judgment.

Finding no good C<1use, the court does not need to inquire into whether Ms.

Morrell h<1s shown <1 meritorious defense. Sec Trtll//n//, 2001 ME 182, (Ir 10, 788

A.2d <1t 170-71 (presence of meritorious defense did not warr<1nt relief absent

good cause).

Ms. Morrell also reCluests that the court refer this C<1se to medi<1tion under

the Foreclosure Diversion Program established by 14 M.R.S.A. § 6321-A and M.R.

Civ. P. 93. Under Rule 93(Cl), the court may order cases filed but not decided

before ]anullry 1, 2010, into mediation if:

(A) after consulting with the Foreclosure Diversion Program

2 Manager, the court determines that mediation resources are available to perform the mediation; and (8) the court finds that mediation will not unduly delay the proceedings or result in prejudice to the plaintiff.

M.R. Civ. P. 93(q) (2010).

The proceedings in this case hcwe ended and the judgment of foreclosure

hZls issued. Furthermore, a successful mediation would almost certainly

prejudice the plZlintiff's rights under that judgment. \'Vhile the stZltutC Zlnd rules

do not expressly prohibit the court from referring a case to mediation after the

entry of ZI finZlI judgment, the court declines to do so here.

The entry is:

DcfendZlnt Michelle Morrell's motion to refer the case to mediZltion

pursuZlnt to Rule 93(q) and her motion for relief frOJ

pursuant to ]\ule 60(b) Zlre both denied. UTN:AOCSsr -2009-0098577 CASE #:PORSC-RE-2009-00167

01 0000002774 BERNER, SETH 169 CLINTON ST PORTLAND ME 04103 F MICHELLE L MORRELL DEF RTND 03/08/2010

02 0000001248 COX, THOMAS PO BOX 1314 PORTLAND ME 04104 F MICHELLE L MORRELL DEF RTND 04/27/2010

03 0000002051 HAENN, MICHAEL S 88 HAMMOND STREET 3RD FLOOR PO BOX 915 BANGOR ME 04402-0915 F MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY PL RTND 09/08/2009