Matrix Financial Services Corp. v. Albert

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: April 24, 2015
• Docket: CUMre-14-369
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. RE-14-369 ·

MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION,

Plaintiff ORDER STA1£0FMNNI- - v. CtJnbedand,SS, CtetriOD

PETER A. ALBERT, et al, APR 24 2015 Defendants RECEIVED Before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss this foreclosure action brought by

plaintiff Matrix Financial Services Corporation on the grounds that Matrix lacks standing to

foreclose defendants' mortgage. See 14 M.R.S. §§ 6321-6326 (2014); M.R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3);

Bank of AmericaNA. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, ~~ 12-17, 96 A.3d 700. Matrix opposes the

dismissal of its foreclosure action and has produced a "Ratification of Assignment" executed by

an agent of Flagstar Bank FSB, the lender named in defendants' mortgage. In the "Ratification

of Assignment," Flagstar Bank FSB purports to ratify the assignment of defendants' mortgage

from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as nominee for Flagstar Bank

FSB, to Matrix.

Ratification is an "affirmance of a prior act done by another, whereby the act is given

effect as if done by an agent acting with actual authority," and it "retroactively creates the effects

of actual authority." Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 4.01(a), 4.02 (2006); see also QAD

Investors, Inc., v, Kelly, 2001 ME 116, ~~ 21-22, 776 A.2d 1244 (discussing ratification of an

agent's acts). It "recasts [the] legal relations as they would have been had the agent acted with

actual authority" and thus the "legal consequences [of ratification] 'relate back' to the time the agent acted," in this case, the time of the assignment by MERS to the plaintiff. Restatement

(Third) of Agency § 4.02 cmt. b. Whether a principal's actions are sufficient to constitute

ratification is an issue of fact. Id. § 4.01 cmt. c.

The "Ratification of Assignment" filed by Matrix in its opposition is sufficient to raise a

triable issue of fact regarding whether Matrix owns defendants' mortgage and has standing to

foreclose. Therefore, Matrix's opposition is sufficient to withstand defendants' motion to

dismiss. As such, the parties should be prepared to address the sufficiency of the "Ratification of

Assignment" at the final hearing. The court expresses no view at this time whether the

ratification document proffered by Matrix is itself sufficient to prove ratification or whether

witness testimony will be required.

The entry shall be:

Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order

in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: April24, 2015 Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

2 CLERK OF COURTS Cumberland County 205 Newbury Street, Ground Floor Portland, ME 04101

LEONARD MORLEY ESQ SHAPIRO & MORLEY LLC 707 SABLE OAKS DRIVE SUITE 250 '?lo...\<1-t;~;'~ fl~~(N<_/ SOUTH PORTLAND ME 04106

~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------·------

CLERK OF COURTS Cumberland County 205 Newbury Street, Ground Floor Portland, ME 04101

JOSEPH GOODMAN ESQ THE GOODMAN LAW FIRM PA ~\en~CA.'<'h' A~rn~ PO BOX 7523 PORTLAND ME 04112

,