Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.
This text of Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. (Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
(
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-16-35 WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND ) SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/ A ) CHRISTIANA TRUST, NOT IN ITS ) INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT ) SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR ) NOV 16 '17 PH3:45 BROUGHAM FUND I TRUST, ) ANDRO SUPERIOR COUR1 ) Plaintiff ) ) V. ) ) MORTGAGE LENDERS NETWORK ) USA, INC., ) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION ) FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Defendant ) ) and ) ) LEONARD M. CORTELLINO, ) PAULINE A. CORTELLINO, FIRST ) NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, ) NESS OIL COMPANY, and ) MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS ) NOMINEE FOR MORTGAGE ) LENDERS NETWORK USA, INC., ) ) Parties-In-Interest. )
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment in which Plaintiff
requests a declaration that it is the owner of the subject mortgage. Defendant Mortgage
Lenders Network USA, Inc. ("Mortgage Lenders") has not appeared in this action.
Parties-in-interest Leonard and Pauline Cortellino ("the Cortellinos") have intervened to
oppose this motion. A full evidentiary hearing was held on this matter.
I. Background
On June 20, 2006, the Cortellinos executed and delivered to Mortgage Lenders a
note in the amount of $293,250.00. Following a series of endorsements, Plaintiff is the
1 of 5 current holder of the note. The note was secured by a mortgage on real property located
at 1 Buttonwood Lane, Lewiston, ME 04240. The mortgage names Mortgage Lenders as
the Lender and designates Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") as
the nominee of the Lender for purposes of recording the mortgage. On August 6, 2012,
MERS purported to assign the mortgage to CitiMortgage, Inc. ("CitiMortgage"). On May
6, 2013, CitiMortgage assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee for Prof-2012-SI Holding Trust I ("U.S. Bank"). On December 23, 2014, U.S. Bank
assigned the mortgage to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual
capacity but solely as Trustee for the PrimeStar-H Fund I Trust ("Wilmington Savings").
Finally, on October 25, 2016, Wilmington Savings assigned the mortgage to Plaintiff.
III. Discussion
In 2014, the Law Court held that MERS, as nominee for a lender, had no right to
assign a mortgage on behalf of that lender. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, '!I'!I
14-17, 96 A.3d 700. This left MERS' purported assignees unable to prove sufficient
ownership interest in the mortgage to have standing to foreclose. See id. '!I 22 n. 13
("Standing requires that the plaintiff have a minimal legal interest in both the note and
mortgage to seek a foreclosure, including ownership of the mortgage."). Presumably
hoping to resolve a similar standing problem in advance of an action to foreclos~, Plaintiff
filed this action for declaratory judgment against Defendant. Conceding that the
assignment from MERS was invalid under Greenleaf, Plaintiff seeks a declaration from
this Court that it is nonetheless the owner of the mortgage.
The declaratory judgment requested in the case cannot be granted for a number of
reasons. Initially, the Court questions whether a motion for declaratory judgment is
appropriate without an underlying cause of action. The Declaratory Judgment Act "does
not create a new cause of action; its purpose is to provide a more adequate and flexible
2 of 5 ( (
remedy in cases where jurisdiction already exists." Hodgdon v. Campbell, 411 A.2d 667,669
(Me. 1980) (citations omitted); see also Thompson v. Glidden, 445 A.2d 676, 679 (Me. 1982).
Thus, as a declaratory judgment is merely a remedy, and not a cause of action in and of
itself, there is no cause of action in this case on which the Court can grant relief.
Additionally, even if a declaratory judgment is the proper vehicle to resolve
Plaintiff's dilemma, courts can only decide cases where there is a real and substantial,
justiciable controversy. Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 2015 ME 108, 947. The Declaratory Judgments Act empowers the court to declare rights, status and other legal relations when doing so will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty. 14 M.R.S. §§ 5953, 5957. Here, there is only tenuous evidence that any actual controversy exists. Although the Cortellinos have intervened and opposed this motion, Mortgage Lenders, the only named defendant, has not answered or otherwise appeared. Plaintiff alleges that Mortgage Lenders is unwilling or unable to execute a recordable instrument confirming its intent that MERS had the authority to transfer the full interest in the mortgage. However, the Court has no evidence, other than statements made by Plaintiff itself, to support this assertion. Accordingly, in the absence of an actual controversy, at least as to the named Defendant, the Court may refuse to enter a declaratory judgment. See Fannie Mae v. America's Wholesale Lender, No. RE-15-068, 2016 Me. Super. LEXIS 37, at *4 (Mar. 1, 2016). The Court has further concerns as to whether all necessary parties have been properly joined and given notice of the action. "When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding." 14 M.R.S. § 5963. A declaratory judgment in this case might also be a declaration as to the rights of CitiMortgage and U.S. Bank, yet these entities are not 3 of 5 ( parties to this action. See id.; Fannie Mae, 2016 Me. Super. LEXIS 141, at *2-3 (denying plaintiff's request for default judgment in declaratory judgment action in part because plaintiff had failed to join necessary parties); Horton & McGehee, Maine Civil Remedies§ 3-3(d)(2) at 50 (4th ed. 2004) ("A declaration of rights may properly be refused when persons whose interests would be affected are not parties."). Furthermore, the Maine Business Corporations Act provides a limitation on liability for a dissolved corporation after a certain period of time. See 13-C M.R.S. § 1408. If the dissolved corporation has liquidated or distributed its assets, a plaintiff may collect from shareholders of the corporation only to the extent of the assets distributed to the shareholders. 13-C M.R.S. § 1408(4). To the extent Plaintiff's action seeks a declaration that affects an asset disposed of in Mortgage Lender's dissolution, Plaintiff must join any shareholders who might ultimately be divested of that asset. See 13-C M.R.S. § 1408; 14 M.R.S. § 5963; M.R. Civ. P. 19(a); Bank of Am., NA. v. Metro Mortg. Co., 2015 Me. Super. LEXIS 14, at *3-4 (Jan. 29, 2015). Moreover, a declaratory judgment as to whether Plaintiff owns the mortgage would not necessarily remove any uncertainty as to ownership. If the Court were to determine that Plaintiff does not own the mortgage, CitiMortgage, U.S. Bank, and Mortgage Lenders, if it is still in business, would remain free to litigate ownership of the mortgage. See Fannie Mae, 2016 Me. Super. LEXIS 141, at *3-4. Finally, Plaintiff contends it can overcome a MERS defect on the basis that a note holder has an equitable interest in the mortgage, citing Jordan v. Cheney, 74 ME 359, 361 (Me.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilmington-savings-fund-society-v-mortgage-lenders-network-usa-inc-mesuperct-2017.