Wells Fargo Bank v. White

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: November 22, 2017
• Docket: CUMre-17-175
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

Cumberland, ss. STATE OF MAINE Cumberland, ss. Clerk's Office ( NOV 2 9 20\7 '2.. : '5 l P· IN" ' WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee RECEIVED Plaintiff

v. Docket No. PORSC-RE-17-0175

BRADFORD J. WHITE

Defendant

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Defendant Bradford J. White has filed a Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings in response to the renewed foreclosure complaint filed against him by

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee. Plaintiff opposes the Motion and

Defendant has filed a reply to Plaintiffs opposition.

The court elects to decide Defendant's Motion without oral argument. See

M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(7).

Background

N ot&tll of the background facts are pertinent to the pending Motion. What is

pertinent is that this is the second foreclosure action commenced by Plaintiff against

Defendant. The prior action was filed in 2011 and went to a non-jury trial in 2013.

See Wells Fargo Bank, as Trustee v. White, Me. Super. Ct., Cum. Cty, Docket No.

CUMSC-RE-11-77. In an order dated March 21, 2014, the court entered a

foreclosure judgment in favor of Wells Fargo "based on indebtedness of $110,000,"

1 less than Wells Fargo claimed to be due, but more than Bradford White agreed was

due. See id., Order (Mar. 21, 2014). However, in September 2014, after the Maine

Law Court had issued its decision in Bank ef America v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, 96

A.sd 700, the Superior Court sua sponte vacated its March 2014 order and entered

judgment for Bradford White "on the ground that the notice of default and right to

cure letter sent to White on November 17, 2010 did not comply with 14 M.R.S. §

6111." Id., Order (Sept. 5, 2014). The second judgment does not state that whether

is entered with, or without, prejudice. Neither party appealed from the second

judgment, so it became the final judgment in the prior action.

The sole issue raised by Defendant White's Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings is whether the September 2014 judgment in favor of Defendant operates

to bar Plaintiffs claim in this case. Defendant says the September 2014 judgment is

res judicata as to Plaintiffs claim; Plaintiff says it is not.

Standard efReview

The standard of review applicable to a motion for judgment on the pleadings

under Rule 12(c) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure is similar to that on a Rule

12(b)(6) motion-whether the pleading to which the motion is directed, viewed in a

light most favorable to the non-moving party, states a valid claim. See Town ef

E ddington v. University ef Maine Foundation,_2007 ME 74,, §5, 926 A.2d 183, 184;

Heber v. Lucerne-in-Me. Vill. Corp., 2000 ME 1.37,, 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066.

In this case, Defendant's Motion relies on matter outside the pleadings,

namely the September 2014 judgment in Defendant's favor in the prior foreclosure

2 action. However, materials outside the pleadings can be considered, and the court

can take judicial notice of its own docket and its prior orders. Cf Moody v. State

Liquor and Lottery Commission, 2004 ME 20, ~ 10, 84S A.2d 4S, 48 ("official public

documents, documents that are central to the plaintiffs claim, and documents

referred to in the complaint [can be considered] without converting a motion to

dismiss into a motion for a summary judgment when the authenticity of such

documents is not challenged").

Analysis

Defendant contends that the outcome of this case is dictated by the Law

Court's recent decision in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Deschaine, 2017

ME 190, 170 A.sd 2SO.

In that case, the foreclosure plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association

(FNMA) commenced a second residential foreclosure action against the defendant

borrowers. FNMA's first action had been "dismissed with prejudice because the

parties had failed to comply with the court's pretrial order." Id. ~ 1, 170 A.sd 2SO.

FNMA did not appeal or seek post-judgment relief, and the judgment became final.

Id. The next year, FNMA commenced its second action, based on the same note and

mortgage, relating to the same property. Id. The borrowers were granted

summary judgment in the trial court, on the basis that the prior judgment was res

judicata and barred the new action. Id.

On appeal, the Law Court agreed with the borrowers, holding that the fact

that FNMA had accelerated the note meant that its entire claim had been

3 adjudicated in the prior action, citing Johnson v. Samson Construction Corp., 1997 ME

220, 704 A.2d 866.

In the prior action between Wells Fargo and Mr. White, the initial judgment

entered by the court in favor of Wells Fargo for $110,000 plainly constituted an

adjudication on the merits that would bar this action. But that judgment was

vacated.

The second and final judgment entered in the prior action granted judgment

to Defendant White "on the ground that the notice of default and right to cure letter

sent to White on November 17, 2010 did not comply with 14 M.R.S. § 6111." Id.,

Order (Sept. 5, 2014). Compliance with section 6111 is required before a the holder

of a note and mortgage on residential property can accelerate payment of the entire

balance due:

With respect to mortgages upon residential property located in this State when the mortgagor is occupying all or a portion of the property as the mortgagor's primary residence and the mortgage secures a loan for personal, family or household use, the mortgagee may not accelerate maturity of the unpaid balance ef the obligation or otherwise enforce the mortgage because of a default consisting of the mortgagor's failure to make any required payment, tax payment or insurance premium payment, by any method authorized by this chapter until at least 35 days after the date that written notice pursuant to subsection 1-A is given by the mortgagee to the mortgagor ...

14 M.R.S. § 6111 (emphasis added).

Because Wells Fargo failed to comply with section 6111 in the prior action, it

was not entitled to accelerate payment of Mr. White's underlying obligation or

enforce the mortgage. It appears that Wells Fargo did attempt to accelerate

4 payment, but its attempt was not valid, according to the judgment. An invalid

attempt to accelerate payment is not the same as acceleration. Because Plaintiff

Wells Fargo was not entitled to accelerate payment or enforce the mortgage, all that

could have been adjudicated in the prior action was the amount then due on the note.

The rule of Johnson v. Samson Construction applies when the prior action

involved an actual acceleration of payment on the underlying debt, such that the

court's judgment in the action adjudicates the entire claim. Because there was no

acceleration of payment in the prior action between Wells Fargo and Mr. White, the

rule of Johnson v. Samson Construction does not apply. See Pushard v. Bank efAmerica,

2016 WL 3509467, 2016 Me. Bus. & Consumer LEXIS 23 (Me. Bus. & Consumer

Docket Mar. 15, 2016).

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

is denied.

Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79( a), the clerk is directed to incorporate this Order

by reference in the docket.

Dated November 29, 201 7 A. M. Horton, Justice