Maine State Hous. Auth. v. Morrell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION JOCKET NO: RE-09-167 D ,'c 1', ' MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY Plaintiff, ORDER v. STATE OF MAINE Cumberland, 55, Clerk's Office SCOTT P. MORRELL et al., MAY 05 2010 Defendants RECEIVED Plaintiff Maine State Housing Authori ty obtained a foreclosure judgment in this action on February 25, 2010. Now defendant Michelle Morrell seeks relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) and requests mediation pursuant to Rule 93(q). Maine State Housing Authority (MSHO) filed its foreclosure complaint on September 8, 2009, and filed for summary judgment on December 31,2009. Ms. Morrel1 was not represented by counsel at that time and on January 20,2010, filed a motion to enlarge deadlines by sixty days. On January 22, 2010, the court granted Ms. Morrell an additional thirty days rather than sixty requested. Ms. Morrel1 did not file an opposi tion to the motion for summary judgment, and MSf-IO obtained a foreclosure judgment on February 25, 2010, thirty-five days after an opposition was originally due. Ms. Morrell was able to obtain counsel on March 3, 2010, and filed these motions for relief and mediation on March 8, 2010. "To obtain relief from a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect, a party must show (1) a reasonable excuse for her inattention to the court proceedings, and (2) a meritorious defense to the underlying a.ction." 1 Ezell u. Lmuless, 2008 ME 139, 9r 22,955 A.2d 202,207 (citing Blltler v. D/Wnve Scnfc)()rI, 2002 ME 41, <]I 17, 791 A.2d 928,932). Parties appearing pro se are not afforded any "special consideration" or lenity under the rules. Tri. (citing Tnlll7nl7 v. Browne, 2001 ME 182, <]I 11, 788 A.2d 168, 171). Ms. Morrell claims that she was not notified that her motion to enlarge was granted, or that the deadline was extended by thirty days instead of sixty. For this and other unspecified reasons she reCluests relief under Rule 60(b) and asks leave to file her opposition to MSHO's motion for summary judgment. The Law Court has clearly held that "inexperience with the judicial system" is not a "good cause" meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Clltler 71. Dowllcnsl !\i[orlgnge Corp., 2009 ME 84, 9r 15, 976 A.2d 929, 934. I f Ms. Morrell did not receive notice that her motion to enlarge the deadline had been granted, her <1s.c;umption should have been th<1t an opposition was due on the origin<1] deadline of ]<1nuclfy 21, 2010. Instead she assumed without checking th<1t the court h<1d gr<1nted her the full sixty days reCluested. Ms. Morrell's mist<1ken <1ssumption f<111s short of the good cause reCluired for relief from a judgment. Finding no good C<1use, the court does not need to inquire into whether Ms. Morrell h<1s shown <1 meritorious defense. Sec Trtll//n//, 2001 ME 182, (Ir 10, 788 A.2d <1t 170-71 (presence of meritorious defense did not warr<1nt relief absent good cause). Ms. Morrell also reCluests that the court refer this C<1se to medi<1tion under the Foreclosure Diversion Program established by 14 M.R.S.A. § 6321-A and M.R. Civ. P. 93. Under Rule 93(Cl), the court may order cases filed but not decided before ]anullry 1, 2010, into mediation if: (A) after consulting with the Foreclosure Diversion Program 2 Manager, the court determines that mediation resources are available to perform the mediation; and (8) the court finds that mediation will not unduly delay the proceedings or result in prejudice to the plaintiff. M.R. Civ. P. 93(q) (2010). The proceedings in this case hcwe ended and the judgment of foreclosure hZls issued. Furthermore, a successful mediation would almost certainly prejudice the plZlintiff's rights under that judgment. \'Vhile the stZltutC Zlnd rules do not expressly prohibit the court from referring a case to mediation after the entry of ZI finZlI judgment, the court declines to do so here. The entry is: DcfendZlnt Michelle Morrell's motion to refer the case to mediZltion pursuZlnt to Rule 93(q) and her motion for relief frOJ pursuant to ]\ule 60(b) Zlre both denied. UTN:AOCSsr -2009-0098577 CASE #:PORSC-RE-2009-00167 BERNER, SETH 01 0000002774 169 CLINTON ST PORTLAND ME 04103 MICHELLE L MORRELL F DEF RTND 03/08/2010 02 0000001248 COX, THOMAS PO BOX 1314 PORTLAND ME 04104 F MICHELLE L MORRELL DEF RTND 04/27/2010 HAENN, MICHAEL S 03 0000002051 88 HAMMOND STREET 3RD FLOOR PO BOX 915 BANGOR ME 04402-0915 F MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY PL RTND 09/08/2009

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.