Bank of America, N.A. V. Metro Mortgage Co., Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

5T.~ Tl' Ub" ~-1.\t:\E Cl':\ffiERl ..A'>:D, ,s SLPERIOR COUKI CIVIL \CTIO;-,J ~>YM:,~zc~~;0't-IG l:lA:--·'K OF Al\fERICA. N.A., Pl~intiff ORDER 0:'\ Pl AI NT IFFS H..EQCEST FOR l}Ef'AUlT AND Df'b".-\ULT JUDCI\1F'>:T \fFTRO MOR'!CAGE CO. !"'C., Defendont Before the court is plaintiffs n'quc_,st for a default .md default defendant in plaintiff's oction for declaratory judgment. judgm~nt against SL'<C 1-! :'vi.R.S. §§ .~'!51-5963 (2014); l'vLR Civ. !'. 55. Plaintiff s·eeh a declilrahlr)' judgment that plamtiH was a.~.;it,'Tied the mortgage, the note has been paid, and the mortgage should dibch,,rged. According to plamttifs complautt, ddendant, Metro l\lortgage Co., lnc., origmated a mortgage executed by Sandra Rosen to ~c·cure payment of a promissory note, also executed by l\1s. Rosen. (Pl.'s (:(,mpl. '[C:: 5-6.) Plainllff alleges that ,;erVlC!llg oi the mortgage wa" subsequently transferred to plainllff and in 2012, Ms. Rosen pu1d the amOLmts due on the note, entitling her to a disd1arge of the mortgage. 7-S.) Plamtiif tl1en discovered th~t (p]_'b Compl. C::'ll il had not recen.-ed an assignm'"'t of the mortgage a..'!d thus could not record the d1scharge. (Pl."s Compl. C:: 9.) By this time, \1etro Mortgage Co., lnc. had dis5olved. (Pl. sCorn pl. '1110.) The court'" uncertain whether service !he return of ~en·ice flied with the court. w~s properly effectuated i:-1 tlus case desp1te Pl~intiff purports that it ~eTvcd defendant by Rosen. 1 See _-\iitdav~~; M.R Civ P. -1(d)('))_ Aoi<:k irom \To Ruocn'o dum1~ th~l she ·was n~ver defe:-~danfo agen~, ··a person of sutta:1le F1rst, !\ls. the return c>f oervio• fild "1"11 tl,,• r-cmTl" in<Cgular on og~ Ro~vn 011d di~<TdWn i~s lace. u'-u~l who was then resid:ng at Defendant\ ;, not" per<on "then res1dmg at Defendant', u,-,-"U res1dercce." Dt>fc·nCant i.; a di,;.,ol v.cd corporation. Second, 22;1 Co:lf'rl'" Slreel1S not the addres" for " a w~idenc<e.-; See :\f.R. Ev1d. 20l0J! & (c) pwcess by an officer is "accorded face of the retulTl of ~erv1ce cl A.ll:,ough generally a return of serva:<e oi presumption of regularity," the int·gularit:les on the make it unclear \\·hethcr service was sufficient to notify defendant of the action pendmg against Jt. See Tl)_ Banknorth, ':\.A. v. ](14, 'j[ll, S A.3d 1042 (citing boley v. Adams, 638 A.2d Second, Jt appl'ar~ 71~, Hawkin~, 201() \IT 720 (Me. 1994)). plaintiff has failed to join multiple necessary parties to ib acllon. In a declaratoyy judgment actwn, "all person~ shall be m,1de parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the d<Tlaration." 14 M.R.S. § 5963; also M.R. C!\'_p_ 19(al. Ceridinly Ms. Rosen ha& an interest that would bl' ~fleeted ~<'<; by a l 'vfs R0sen tJled ,, letter w1th ~he court ,1fter h~mg 'erved. ln !he letter, she ,1llc~e' '~e "d' ne<·er defendant's agent dml her only conncctron w1th defendant "as tne mo•tgagc tramocboP at looue m t~tts ,,,.e_ ~Rosen Letter dated lG/7 I J4_) ~ The return of orrv1ce ~leJ vnti-l the court pro<•odes an opportumly fm the mdivodual effcct\JJtmg servJCe the u><Otvtdu,11 scrv~d wa' an agent oi the deie<\dant. Lu O~dte J Z211 Congro<O S• m Portland, _\1ame 10 tl-<e address [0, 2 U)'(UM T~1ird, the :\lam~ Buoil'"" CoqwratJOns .-'\ct ~>~o·ddes rll'SOived corporo.lion slMrehold~""- ,,ft~,- u ccrbm pcnod oi tm~- hm:tabon OlliiabilJt\' leT~ d See l'J-C 1\Ll~_o,_ ~ 1 til~ (:!lll4) If t!1e 13-C \1.R.S. § I-'IO.Si-±). To the extent piamllff's acllon seeks a dedc.ratwn t}u.c dfeclY an a~~et disposed 0i 1r. def~ndant's dissolutwn, plrur.hff must .'>hdrl'ho)ders who might ulTimately !:>e divested of that c.sse:. See 13-C :\I.R.S.~ JOlll aJW 14.08; 14 'v1 R.S § 5963: 1\1-R. Civ. P. 19(a). Conduswn The return of service does not demonstrate that defendant received notice of the action. See_ Hawkins 2010 :\1E 104, '[ 16, 3 A.3d 1042 ("Effective 'service ensureb the mtegrity of the corrunencement of hllgation."'l If defendant has not received notice of the a<;"tion ag~inst it, defendant cannot be l'xpected to "pkad S~e provided by" the Rules ol C!\'Jl Procedure. p~rtil'S may b~ PT p\hl'nvisc defend as 1\!.R. Civ. P. 55{a). Additionally. othr'T necessary in this action. Sl'<' 14 M.R.S § .~%3; \1.R. Civ. 19{a}. The entry is Plamlltf s l~eque~llor JJdau~t Detault Judgment ts DEKIED a It, , • /A . / /PCC<---- u~i/ ----•t1\itlls / Dated: Januan 29. 2015 ~ - Jusbce, Sup<'rioVCourl: 4 In her leller lo the couct Ms (lose~ star~s she sold the propcrt;· ~ncumt>crcd by tile mortgage to o thHci por:y Pla111t1E has been undble lo record the d~>chorge uf the m,H:goge. Dependmg ()Jl lhe C()Yendnls m the deed bet;•;eon l\Js. Rosen ond t.,e tlMd party b:>)W9, she may be sub1ec: to (J,lbJI!t} ior the fati:HO to convev a ma1ketaille bile_ Accordlllgly, the interests oi both 'vis. Rosen o0d the th1rd pa't}' buye's could be affected by tim IL\lga\lon. 3 ~RK OF COURTS "mberland County bury Street, Ground Floor cr:!and, ME 041 01 E--:~ Lly'c~-f6 l>tl'\:l(K f'OR:A;DA ESQ PIERCE ATWOOD MERRILLS WHARf 245 COM'v1ERCIAL ST PORTLAND ME 04101 ,_,_.,_ - ----~-c- ----

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.