Opinion
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-15-095
05-24-2017
U.S. BANK, N.A., Plaintiff v. FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant and Harry Stanley Watts, Jr.; Jean Sally Watts; Harry Stanley Watts, III; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for First Magnus Financial Corporation; Finance Authority of Maine; Coastal Enterprises, Inc.; and Biddeford-Saco Area Economic Development Corporation, Parties in Interest
STATE OF MAINE
CUMBERLAND, ss JUDGMENT
Trial on plaintiff's complaint for declaratory judgment and title was held on March 6, 2017. All parties were served with plaintiff's complaint. Parties in interest Finance Authority of Maine and Coastal Enterprises, Inc. filed answers. All parties were sent notice of the trial. Only plaintiff appeared at trial.
Facts
On July 6, 2006, party in interest Harry Stanley Watts III signed a promissory note with lender, defendant First Magnus Financial Corporation. (Pl.'s Ex. 1.) The note was endorsed in blank by First Magnus and plaintiff presented the original for the court's inspection at the trial on the complaint.
On July 21, 2006, to secure the note, parties in interest Harry Stanley Watts III, Jean Sally Watts, and Harry Stanley Watts, Jr. signed a mortgage with lender First Magnus. The mortgage encumbered real property in Scarborough, Maine. (Pl.'s Ex. 2.) On October 4, 2011, party in interest Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc., as nominee for First Magnus, assigned the mortgage to Aurora Bank FSB. (Pl.'s Ex. 3.) On November 14, 2012, Aurora Bank FSB assigned the mortgage to Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. (Pl.'s Ex. 4.) On April 14, 2015, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC assigned the mortgage to plaintiff. (Pl.'s Ex. 5.)
Plaintiff asks the court to confirm and reaffirm the transfer of the mortgage by Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc. nunc pro tunc as of November 14, 2012, and specifically find that plaintiff is the owner of the note and mortgage. As discussed in the order on plaintiff's motion for partial default judgment and judgment on the pleadings, whether the default of defendant and the principle that the holder of a mortgage has an equitable interest in the mortgage is sufficient to overcome the MERS issue identified in Greenleaf is an issue to be resolved by the Law Court. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, ¶¶ 13-17, 96 A.3d 700; (Order Denying Mot. Default March 7, 2016 2.) Under the facts of this case, Greenleaf dictates that because plaintiff cannot establish it has ownership of the mortgage, plaintiff lacks standing to seek foreclosure on the mortgage and note. See Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, ¶17, 96 A.3d 700. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. See Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Cope, 2017 ME 68, ¶ 13, ___ A.3d ___.
The entry is
Plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A.'s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Date: May 24, 2017
/s/_________
Nancy Mills
Justice, Superior Court
JOHN DOONAN ESQ
DOONAN GRAVES & LONGORIA
100 CUMMINGS CENTER, STE 225 D
BEVERLY MA 01915
COASTAL ENTERPRISES INC
C/O MARSHALL TINKLE ESQ
THOMPSON MACCOLL & BASS
PO BOX 447
PORTLAND ME 04112-0447
FINANCE AUTHORITY OF MAINE
C/O CHRISTOPHER RONEY ESQ
PO BOX 949
AUGUSTA ME 04332-0949