US Bank, N.A. v. Smith

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: April 23, 2015
• Docket: CUMre-12-288
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION Docket No. RE-12-288

US BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff

v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER NANCY S. SMITH and PAUL D. SMITH,

Defendants

Before the court is plaintiff's motion to reconsider the award of attorney's fees to

defendants. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

As stated in the court's order dated 1114115, the "court has carefully reviewed

the affidavit of Attorney Levis and the description of the work performed on, and the

hours devoted to, this case." Unlike in the Bridgton District Court case cited by

plaintiff, Attorney Levis's affidavit did not lack sufficient detail to allow this court to

determine the "nature and necessity of a substantial portion of the legal work

performed by defendants' counsel." Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Quincy, No. BRIDC-

RE-09-191, at 2 (Me. Dist. Ct., Bridgton, Dec. 17, 2014). If the court had thought the fees

were excessive, they would have been reduced, as in the West Bath District Court case.

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Wade, No. WES-RE-12-134 (Me. Dist. Ct., West Bath,

Dec. 22, 2014).

This complaint was filed 7111112. The case was called for trial on 3119113 and

11 I 6 I 13 and was continued. The Bank of America v. Greenleaf decision was filed

713114. Bank of Am. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89,96 A.3d 700. Plaintiff's counsel in this

case represented plaintiff Bank of America in the Greenleaf case.

1 By notice dated 8 I 18 I 14, the case was called to trial on 11 I 4 I 14. Four days

before trial, on 10130114, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice based on

Greenleaf. The motion was opposed by defendants, who requested a dismissal with

prejudice.

Between 8118114 and 1114114, defendants incurred $7,897.50 in attorney's fees

in preparation for trial. Plaintiff delayed a dismissal in this case by four months, even

though the facts in this case with regard to the notice of right to cure are identical to

those in Greenleaf. (Pl.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 2 (In Greenleaf, "the Law Court considered

language contained in Plaintiff's Notice which is identical to the language at issue in

this subject Notice.").) See Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, 2008 ME 11, <[ 12, 940 A.2d 1082

("[A]warding attorney's fees to one party because the other party has unnecessarily

prolonged the litigation is well within a court's discretion.") "He who seeks equity

must do equity." Hazzard v. Westview Golf Club, Inc., 217 A.2d 217, 226 (Me. 1966).

Plaintiff also argues that the court should disbelieve statements from Attorney

Levis in his reply to the objection to the motion for fees. (Mot. to Reconsider at 3; Defs.'

Reply to Obj. to Mot. for Attorney's Fees at 2.) Plaintiff's argument is inappropriate and

without support.

The entry is

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Dated: April 23, 2015 Nancy Mills Justice, Superior

Plaintiff-John Doonan Esq/Jenai Cormier Esq Defendants-S James Levis Esq