Roche v. Elliott

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-07-024 STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. DONALD ROCHE, et al., Plaintiffs ORDER v. WILLIAM ELLIOTT, et al., Defendants This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Donald Roche and Margaret Roche's (Plaintiffs) Motion to Reconsider pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 59. Following hearing, the Motion is Denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Donald Roche and Margaret Roche (Plaintiffs) move this Court to reconsider the March 7,2008 Order denying their Cross-motion for Summary Judgment (Cross-motion) against any and all Defendants. The Defendants in this case are various neighbors (collectively "Defendants"). Some of the Defendants were represented by counsel, while others represented themselves. Defendants' responses to the motions varied. As stated below, these varying responses were not dispositive at summary judgment. Both parties moved for summary judgment pursuant to Plaintiffs' claim that they have obtained title to a certain parcel of land by adverse possession or, alternately, by abandonment. Plaintiffs are residents of Massachusetts and owners of a property (Lot 2) located on Mousam Lake in Shapleigh, Maine. The perimeters of Lot 2 are designated in the deed by reference to a 1938 plan entitled "Mousam Grove Extension" filed in the York County Registry of Deeds (1938 Plan). Def. SMF <JI 3. The disputed parcel lies between Lots 2 and 3 (Disputed Parcel) and is designated on the 1938 Plan as a right-of-way. Plaintiffs assert that the Court erred as a matter of law in denying summary judgment. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that 1) the Court erred in not granting summary judgment against Defendants on the grounds that they failed to controvert critical statements; 2) the Court erred in not granting summary judgment against noticed Defendants who did not oppose Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment at all; 3) the Court erred in not granting summary judgment against Defendants outside the subdivision who provided no evidence of any colorable interest in the former right-of­ way; and 4) the Court's failure to rule on the issue of acquiescence and/or abandonment of the easement was an omission that should be corrected by granting Plaintiffs' summary judgment against all the Defendants on the grounds of acquiescence and / or abandonment. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review Under the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, "motions for reconsideration of an order shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5). "The court may in its discretion deny a motion for reconsideration without hearing and before opposition is filed." Id. II. Did the Court Err in its Denial of Cross-motion? 2 The Court denied Plaintiffs' Cross-motion because material facts were in dispute regarding whether Plaintiffs had established the elements of adverse possession. 1 Specifically, the exclusivity of use was disputed. (See Def. S.M.F. CJICJI 8-14.) a. Failure to Oppose Cross-motion Plaintiffs assert that the Court erred in not granting summary judgment against Defendants on the grounds that Defendants failed to controvert critical statements of material fact contained in Plaintiffs' Cross-motion Statement of Material Facts. Plaintiffs' rest their argument on a plain reading of M.R. Civ. P. 56(h), which states in part: [a] party opposing a motion for summary judgment shall submit with its opposition a separate, short and concise opposing statement. . . . Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2) & (4). In this case, Defendants failed to oppose Plaintiffs' Crossmotion that was attached to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue, the material facts submitted in the Cross- motion are deemed admitted because they have not been controverted. The Court cannot agree with this interpretation of Rule 56. It would be illogical to conclude that a fact, already controverted, could become uncontroverted simply because an opposing party filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. In this case, certain Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. That Motion contained a Statement of Material Facts as required under the Rules. Within that Statement of Material Facts, Defendants set forth in numbered paragraphs genuine There is no dispute that, in order for the Plaintiffs to obtain title by adverse possession, they have the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that their "possession and use of the property were" actual, open visible, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, exclusive, and "of a duration exceeding the twenty-year limitations period." Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman P'ship, 1999 ME 111, CJI6, 733 A.2d 984, 989 (citations omitted). 3 issues of material fact supported by record citations to sworn affidavits of individuals who asserted a continued use of the Disputed Parcel. (See Def. S.M.F. enen 8-14.) Plaintiffs opposed those statements by submitting an opposing Statement of Material Facts set forth in numbered paragraphs supported by record citations to sworn affidavits of individuals who dispute use of the Disputed Parcel by anyone other than Plaintiffs. Accordingly, at least one element of Plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession (and abandonment for that matter) is in dispute. Summary judgment was not proper. Plaintiffs point to two facts contained in their Cross-motion and assert that Defendants' failure to oppose these two facts is determinative. The Court agrees that, if any fact in Plaintiffs' Cross-motion Statement of Material Facts is both uncontoverted and material, it would be deemed admitted. i. Plaintiffs' Opposing Material Fact Sf 15 Opposing Material Fact en 15 is supported by affidavit of Mr. Fiandaca, the owner of Lot 3 that also borders the Disputed Parcel. In his affidavit he states inter alia that he was forced to build a fence because "defendants in this litigation" were erroneously walking across his property and "didn't know where the right of way was./I However, material facts are already in evidence that certain Defendants did correctly identify the Disputed Parcel and have used it continuously over the years. (See e.g. Def. S.M.F. en 8.) This fact, if it is fact and not opinion, remains in dispute. ii. Plaintiffs' Opposing Material Fact Sf 9 Likewise Opposing Material Fact en 9 is not determinative at summary judgment. Paragraph 9 asserts that none of the Defendants objected to a shed that blocks the Disputed Parcel. However, the fact that a shed has blocked Defendants access to the Disputed Parcel is in dispute. (See Def. S.M.F. en 15.) Thus, whether or not Defendants objected to the shed is not a material fact. 4 b. Defendants who Failed to Oppose Summary Judgment Plaintiffs further assert that the Court erred in not granting summary judgment against noticed Defendants who did not oppose Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment at all. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs are asserting an affirmative right to title of land by adverse possession/ abandonment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that their "possession and use of the property were" actual, open, visible, notorious, hostile, under claim of right, continuous, exclusive, and "of a duration exceeding the twenty-year limitations period." Striefel, 1999 ME 111, <jJ6, 733 A.2d at 989. By granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs with respect to any Defendant the Court would be granting that right with respect to all Defendants. c. Defendants Outside the Subdivision Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in not granting summary judgment against Defendants residing outside the subdivision who provided no evidence of any colorable interest in the former right-of-way. The interest of those parties, however, is not a material fact with respect to Plaintiffs' claim in adverse possession and/or abandonment except to the extent that they may have relinquished a potential right. Whether or not any Defendant has a right to use the Disputed Parcel, Plaintiffs retain the burden to affirmatively show each element of their adverse position claim in order to obtain a fee interest in the Disputed Parcel. Accordingly, as stated in subparagraph b, above, summary judgment is inappropriate against the Defendants residing outside the subdivision? The Court acknowledges that certain Defendants have brought counter-claims seeking a declaration of their rights to the Disputed Parcel, either by deeded right or prescriptive easement. (See Amended Answer and Counter Claim.) These assertions were not addressed at motion for summary judgment and thus not appropriate for resolution at this time. 2 5 d. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred when it failed to consider Plaintiffs' "Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment." However, the Maine Rules of Court do not recognize a supplemental memorandum under Rule 56, accordingly, the Court did not err in not considering the memorandum. See generally M.R. Civ. P. 56. Moreover the memorandum was not dispositive in support of Plaintiffs' Crossmotion. To prevail under an abandonment theory, the moving party must establish: 1) a history of non-use; and 2) an act or omission evincing a clear intent to abandon. D'Angelo v, McNutt, 2005 NIE 51, err 13, 868 A.2d 239, 244. The Court has already ascertained that the history of non-use by Defendants is a material fact in dispute. Accordingly, summary judgment on a theory of abandonment is inappropriate. CONCLUSION Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. Dated: June~2008 . Arthur Brennan Justice, Superior Court SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR ATTORNEYS AND PRO SE DEFENDANTS. 6 SUPERILJK COURT YORK, ss. Docket No ALFSC-RE-2007-00024 DCNALD kOCHE - PLAINTIFF 58 CATTAIL LOOP SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 Attorney for: DONALD ROCHE FRANCES C LINDEMANN - RETAINED 02/16/2007 NADEAU & ASSOCIATES, PA FOUR OAKS PROFESSIONAL PARK 1332 POST ROAD, SUITE 4A WELLS ME 04090 DOCKET RECORD MARGARET ROCHE 58 CATTAIL LOOP SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 Attorney for: MARGARET ROCHE FRANCES C LINDEMANN - RETAINED 02/16/2007 NADEAU & ASSOCIATES, PA FOUR OAKS PROFESSIONAL PARK 1332 POST ROAD, .SUITE 4A WELLS ME 04090 vs !! i' WILLIAM F ELLIOTT . ,if! BARBARA J ELLIOTT f 84 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 WILLIAM H ELLIOTT 90 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 FAYE JEAN ELLIOTT 90 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 GERALD DEMERS - DEFENDANT J/.1,J.107 rt-YL~kJ.;l-""';, 107 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 , CINDY DEMERS - DEFENDANT 107 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 -:0/// ROBERT B RIDING - DEFENDANT 31&l/017'- fJp.'}(_·H-tL1t..JU)() 523 MAIN STREET , SPRINGVALE ME 04083 ~I,/Ji SUSAN W RIDING .. DEFENDANT 523 MAIN STREET SPRINGVALE ME 04083 y/ . f) ~ ,.iii D1\VID MCNJI.LI, - DE~Elm!'_N'T' j f.;;;!'/~·'7. ,'<:..1 :;.~ .. 99 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 ~ ,i,/ DEBORAH MCNALL - DEFENDANT 3b c'7 - eLl'~:'" 99 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 LEROYF HERSOM - DEFENDANT H ;ji~ 16 CATTAIL LOOP SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 ]/;/ NANCY HERSOM - DEFENDANT c(, /L 16 CATTAIL LOOP SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 Page 1 of 5 + =01 ) '/ r'.g 7'f/L i '( [~1: 5l l 3/ /o (, - 1;,.£ :3!X)1 rl. ¢ Printed on: 02/20/2007 ALFSC-RE-2007-00024 DOCKET RECORD F--' 7)1{ ROBERT W VENNARD 8 TURBINI LANE BERWICK ME 03901 CAROLINE 9 VENNARD 8 TURBINI LANE BERWICK ME 03901 FRANK H WITHAM - DEFENDANT 241 CHASE'S POND ROAD YORK ME 03909 3/;' 3)1l,"1 RICHARD A MADONNA - DEFENDANT 75 WINTER STREET MANSFIELD MA 02048 ~II ROY PALMQUIST - DEFENDANT 59 CATTAIL LOOP SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 111/ LEE ELIZABETH PALMQUIST 59 CATTAIL LOOP SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 DERWEN1' RIDING - DEFENDANT 302 C ALMEIDA COURT BRISTOL RI 02809 VI! {pl ~V <V-,'/ t;/3! "l IJ CHARLES HUNTER GOLDIE - DEFENDANT 4/3//)'7 245 DAVIS ROAD BEDFORD MA 01730 v' BEVERLY HOOPER - DEFENDANT ~/H/~1 9 KINGS HIGHWAY SOUTH ELIOT ME 03903 v' t.-f. 7 /0 ~1- :)cII/iLINDA PRITCHETT - DEFENDANT 9 KINGS HIGHWAY SOUTH ELIOT ME 03903 ~ ROBERT HOOPER - DEFENDANT 1.:/ (/ 9 KINGS HIGHWAY SOUTH s//i o (' l/w ~ ;~~",-,Q. { ...-UH.­ tT J f3...-t l,,-­ lor ELIOT ME 03903 _ [; " J I MARTIN - DEFENDANT fJ..u..~ 88 BARTLETT ROAD KITTERY POINT ME 03905 _ J]JI PATRICK GAUVREAU - DEFENDANT 3/J.-7!C'/ 9,J(~"J~n.ua-IU:, 177 31ST STREET /}" SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 3111 KATHLEEN GAUVREAU - DEFENDANT 3/~71()"1 c;-- :1-t'/,!.J.!.--fl~;/l-h~ 177 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 -,) ((. KAREN JOY - DEFENDANT /" 12 FLOYD STREET REVERE MA 02151 1 JIG SANDRA JOY - DEFENDANT "/ 12 FLOYD STREET REVERE MA 02151 y~.& KYLE W GREENWOOD 430 KINGSTON ROAD SATELLITE BEACH FL 32937 JP0KIMBERLY L GREENWOOD - DEFENDANT ,d,',!',­ 430 KINGSTON ROAD SATELLITE BEACH FL 32937 Page 2 of 5 sJte( HENRY Jl.N-lolJ /Ul!-l{.AJAAL "'6' &6 tt­ Printed on: 02/20/2007 ':.-lIll~vIS ALFSC-RE-2007-00024 DOCKET RECORD J EATON (TRUSTEE) - DEFENDANT 159 SOUTH MAIN STREET SEABROOK NH 03874 / (~ 111g b 1Ii~~~::=~~f.s·s~~ j I« jr/ !I <.:.'1,'//. 0, <" ,!"tbF ELIOT ME 03903 ./ dISrWs).,cid I/JFpaj.,_ PA'f'-RI ¬'-I-A-A-4'REFE':PHBN---i3-Elf'-ElNBAN!j' 2Jf.2 {Iat> .Q (, .t. 'c..".. 224 HANSCOM ROAD ELIOT ME 03903 i~DENNIS KINCH - DEFENDANT if/3}t,! a"'l0'~ ~1L.')!''''4'lV &j'. fY{ LYNN KINCH - DEFENDANT 413b'II~£."fI..41..- {J-A"'lf4/)(., Q::, ' 1ELLIOTT LEVINE {?/J.t..S;.:66 CATTAIL LOOP SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 . LINDA LEVINE - DEFENDANT.!' f3!.3(i/C·'} - 1!1./;;',_ 66 CATTAIL LOOP SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 / Illk73ARBARA J WITHAM - DEFENDANT :J/~.3/G-) ~l..£l­ 24l CHASE'S POND ROAD YORK ME 03909 RONALD E WHITNEY - DEFENDANT 3/:;. q/0 /l ;} .i)-i..,d;?-(u..J...J.h..~ 1428 FOXES RIDGE ROAD ACTON ME 04001 II JACQUELINE M WHITNEY 1428 FOXES RIDGE ROAD ACTON ME 04001 llvl!ijDWARD F GOODWIN - DEFENDANT/"/;zJO'1 ,1.c.. 115 WHIPPLE ROAD KITTERY ME 03904 M GOODWIN - DEFENDANTV-J.//<J./07 - f?A.-<. Ide­ 115 WHIPPLE ROAD KITTERY ME 03904 If{;l FRANCIS J REICHARDT 4 PINE RIDGE ROAD TOPSFIELD MA 01983 ) [.1.. /. <,~ DEFENDANT ,/,:/ v'l'~IEILEEN REICHARDT 1I,/o 't DEFEND~IJ(.'/{."l- I' ])11 - fl\.() 01 ED' 3} ~-<, Yd/lrE 4 PINE RIDGE ROAD TOPSFIELD MA 01983 JII/ 7)13 SCOTT E MCFARLAND 123 3lST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 FREDDIE BEATON - DEFENDANT 116 BLACK SNAKE ROAD SEABROOK NH 03874 STEVEN J HOWLEY - DEFENDANT 2124 SANFORD ROAD #13 WELLS ME 04090 SUSAN M HOWLEY .. DEFENDANT 2124 SANFORD ROAD #13 WELLS ME 04090 VII NGRMA--BAR:RB'F-T-BEF-ENBAN!f­ 79 LEBANON ROAD SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 j'}/t-He~'P------'BBF'E~ep jjA.7/C,/ CJ··l~~J..t'l.l,),.a.jL(~ &'{. 1-f)5/0'7 --LU-t.t.tl~./j..,v li~,}l<i: &.f U b 4-/:i Iv'"] JU.L.e.tea.»v 1Cd,')1..~. ¢ {-of 0 ALFSC-RE-2007-00024 DOCKET RECORD SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 ;l;!'1 79 LEBANON ROAD CHRISTIANE L CASSERLY 459 CARRIE AVENUE PEMBROKE NH 03275 rP'{ MICHAEL J CASSERLY 459 CARRIE AVENUE PEMBROKE NH 03275 NORMAN OUELLETTE 87 LEBANON ROAD () /' - DEFENDANT () ;'"1 ( .:i /l , rt . n '.J i i t{~ . SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 ~)I CHRISTINE OUELLETTE 87 LEBANON ROAD SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 1//1 GLEN ELLIOTT .. DEFENDANT 3pvlt;&'sO 'Sep~l 75 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 ~) If GUADILLA ELLIOTT 75 31ST STREET SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 3) tI 3)\\ DONALD OUELLETTE 91 LEBANON ROAD .. DEFENDANT SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 JANET OUELLETTE - DEFENDANT 3/)1/ uc, ?)t.ot ,h.?;".. .L1.t.:.>.AhL E;" c 6 a/7-J/tJ(, 21',(- ~"L.h-"-"~Akl..~ Er,c. 91 LEBANON ROAD (, SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 "Jtf .r DOUGLAS DODGE .. DEFENDANT 61 LEBANON ROAD d,/.i-/'t.,u.l.t:rI~l/ . / I) SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 /J ¢ L1" ." } - DEFENDANT (/",,"), .,/,,,~-' l -<,,,,,1,, . . ,,,/ -~,,~( f NANCY M DODGE " . .">1:-"? jI 61 LEBANON ROAD 7/b SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 Jl;,b MARILYN BERGHORN 7 1631 LITTLE NECK AVENUE " ROBERT W BERGHORN - DEFENDANT 1631 LITTLE NECK AVENUE "" ) fi10 '{..At..: .(..ct.Lt:...'YlV '(ti..",-({ [g./ BELLEMORE NY 11710 .. DEFENDANT 4/';;) /YJ BELLEMORE NY 11710 '1 LAWRENCE C SPURR - DEFENDANT ( 63 30TH STREET 3~) SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 MAINE, STATE OF, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES - DEFENDANT BURTON M CR08S BUILDING 6TH FL AUGUSTA ME 04333 J)j) >1~ Jt/~j JlrjSHAPJ:,E'f:G'Ei----.rreWN-&~T 3;6,,jI 1/. h"th'1-G-J 22 BACK ROAD SHAPLEIGH ME 04076 _. ' eM" h~'/I hi.' / ltl/~tfy'),"'k; Shi hiil vn.ij iJ/"1/07 f::,.S,. I ~ MOR!I'GAGE'''EIJECTRONI C-~EGI STAAT IDN'-SYSTEtJI's--::;J)EFENDANT 1595 SPRING HILL ROAD, ./ tf/4/O'] aU£U(L, f! .'1J(t;"t.vu4AV'.4A I.~ !)fSiV\\<'.S~(~. STE 310 -'\ \1\ \)"1 ' /' ~'" :3/i'£1 {)'r---/i.J.bW7IV-S''j,(.d1?t~·S9. f) () VIENNA VA 22182 WA:SHINGT0N'-MUTUAL~BANK--F'-A----~DEFENDANT,.. In 5/)]1 SSt} 1/11/';1 MAIL STOP WMC3501 1301 2ND AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98101 .KEY_BAl{IL=__DEFENDA!'IT 0r)I')II) \! J 1/11/; Page 4 of 5 Printed on: 02/20/2007 ALFSC-RE-2007-00024 DOCKET RECORD CLEVELAND OH 44114 127 PUBLIC SQUARE BANK OF AMERICA NA - DEFENDANT f)1.S;)jlfx.~j 1 fill 07 100 NORTH TRYON STREET CHARLOTTE NC 28255 ' G-I:r.~Etffitl1'n'" OJ 51J11 SS(J ? 1/ 11/0 ~ HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK INC - DEFENDANT ~ ~)ll SANFORD" INSTITUTB-'OFSAV,tNGS-~D~FENDANT 900 MAIN STREET ;)OIJlt>'~{cI i/17/t 7 'f/~):1c 'l a_J)C:if/:;7;.e~ - ~ ,?Vo: "1;' ¢ SANFORD ME 04073 PROFILE BANK F S B - DEFENDANT? / 'I'?> SALEM-F-WE-BAV-INGS-BANK-~--DEFENDANT' 31J-L,).iJ!..l··-7H,u-lt.-r..z~-~"kr;rc~ _ 210 ESSEX STREET I)O/J)I lJtJ 7/17/. 7 SL~,,7') _ >-41~''"'.'~'''';'::J;:2. . ti?l..// v f 7 7 ( rFt/I.:rrcr7D-7::fDa..-,1U-a--z./ SALEM MA 01970 _=jdt' j ...cL ­ '/ JI~ KENNEBBNK-'SAVINGS~BAN~)'-~I?EFE~AN'I'- ujfik"7 A.L!..u!.tL~J tYa... f. 104 MAIN STREET fIY/Jllff/{. -7/17/'7 If';)/; KENNEBUNK ME 04043 F-I RBT--HBR-:EZ(;)N·-HOME-:C01iN(C0RP-.- -j)lr-ENDANT 4/5/0'1 1 IvlERCHANTS PLAZA })15f!)nJtl1!111/~ } BANGOR ME 04401 1 13 YORK--COBNT-Y-FEDE·RAf,.--GREDI:T--UNTON-='-DEFENDm:JT 1516 MAIN STREET SANFORD ME 04073 " . i !J,<;jU7 L( 10 t1f1.(f,:,.,'U IU.').. [0 ( t' a -:;:!~'>I.<;:Z:CYi1.. ~,i:.-;"o'(j(~:::ti.:o().::zztct6:V;;i;~.:-l"~(l;".·"""C~/'I<!-')16";'/,.,.~nt"'j..,Jh4:"'--'rl-:1';';;~.;';::;'17/.s::-:s;-')'\" .1-0 _tt::ttt.: 8-ritrt+cef .)ISfi')tS}X.J HOME"-LLlAN'-ANEl--UNESTMENT--B:ANK-'F'-S-B-DEFENBANT­ ONE HOME LOAN PLAZA' WARWICK RI DIS'i)'115ft) ---,/I1/a7 02886 S-I-GNATURE-CI{'EDfTUNIO~f)E-FENDANI'-DISliJil}c" -1/17/ tJ-7 2032 LAFAYETTE ROAD ::~=.~~=y~O=Ty:~~~7N~ORP--DEFF1NDANT~/.aJi):}~t=l<=Gr:dzv ~. /)(;r;JI>5(1(1 1/17/ ~~ ~ 6 SPRUCE STREET SANFORD ME 04073 Attorney for: YORK COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION CORP BARBARA CRIDER - RETAINED 04/03/2007 YORK--G:OUNT·Y--CDMMUN:I:'I'¥-AGT·ION···CORPElRATION'" 6 SPRUCE STREET POBOX 72 SANFORD ME 04073 ,It~6TfJNI.T-ED -STATES-BF·--AMER-IGA-RURAlrHeUSING-SERv-----DEFENDAN'F PO BOX 66889 /),5I}J1f~JI!J -'//1/ C 'J ST LOUIS MO 63166 SACO & BIDDEFORD SAVINGS 252 MAIN STREET BIDDEFORD ME 04007 Page· ........ ::;:, ..... 8 of 13 Printed on: ~r1nCeQ on: 04/03/2007 u~/~U/~UU·,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.