US Bank Nat'l Assn Trustee, Credit Suisse First V. Young
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SlJTERIOR COUIU CIVIL ACf!0:'\1 DOCKET NO. RE-13-117 YORK, ss. PAF- '(oR,- Oi-!75-15 US BAI\iK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ·r RUSTFE, CREDITSL'ISSE HRST, Plainhff ORDER MARIT:'>J T- YOUNG, eta!. Defendants Tiw plamtJ:ff has filed a complamt for foreclosure in 2011 based on a 2006 note in favor of an entity called Mortgage 1\etwork, Inc. The Youngs filed an answer which included affirmative defenses that the plaintiff had not complied with the notice provisions found at 14 M.RS. §6111 and that it did"-- not have standing to bring its complaint" The case contmued l'.ith a tortured hlslory, which included an order from the District Court in October of 2012 imposing sanctions against the plaintiff for failure to mediate in good fa1th. At the concluswn of mediation the c11se was returned to thib Court and a foreclosure scheduling order issued. The pBrties requested and received extensions of the discovery deadline_ The CBSe was originally pbced on the trial list starting August 25, 2014. Vl!thout objection the Court granted the plainhffs requ,.st to contmue the trial because of the Law Court decision from July, 2014 in Bank of America v. Greenleaf, 2014 \1E 89. The case was then placed on the list st<~rting J<~nUillJ' 5, 2015 =d the plilintiffs motion for special assignment was granted when the case was set for trial on january 5, 2015. On December ~0, 2014 the Clerk rece1ved the plam!1ff~ expedited moiJon to dismiss where the plamtJff sought to d1Sm1SS the Ci!Se without prejudice because of unresolved standing issues. !"he motwn was objected tu ilnd Wil~ <~rgued today. Counsel for the plamtJff md,cated that the original lender might still exist at a location in lvlassachusetts. No efforts hild be€n made to verify whether the original lender still mamtmned its corpor<~te mortgage to the plilintiff. existence or would be willmg to assign the The plilintiff's request for a d1smissal without prejudice will not be granted given its slow and minimal efforts to resolve the standing question. A dismissal with prejudice or a judgment for the defendants at this time is too harsh a remedy, as it appears that a substantial sum was borrowed and has not been repaid. However, the plaintiff has been aware of its standing problem for an extended period and has yet to make any significant efforts to remedy the problem. Civen that a judgment for the defendants could have been granted, the sanction imposed on the plainbff is a measured response and is >vilhin the inherent authonty of the Court. Withm 10 days counsel for the defendants shall indicate, with supporting documentation, what his total bill for the enllre case hils been. He should deduct the The pl<~inliff shall have 10 days to respond $2,000 sanction that has already been paid. after which the Court will review the bill and any objection and 1ssue a fee award p<~yable in full within 30 days thereafter. iVithin 60 days the plaintiff shall indicate by affidavit thal it has resolved its st=ding issues, that it cannot resolve the issues, or that 11 has filed suit against the original lender. 2 The entry is: The case will be stayed for 90 days. The expedited motion to dismis" is denied. Dated: january 5, 2013 C?...._f--.~ Paul A. 1-'ritzsche JustJce, Superior Court 3 RF.-l3-ll7 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAil'.lTFF. JEFFREY JHARDIMAN SHECHTMAN HAUERlN SAVAGE UP 1080 MAlN STREET PAWTUCKETRI 02860 BRIDGET STEVEI"iS CHRISTTh"E A JOHNSON BENDETT & MCHUGH PC 30 DANFORTH ST SUITE 104 PORTLA'ID i\1E 04101 ELIZABETH M LACO.MBE BENDETT & MCHUGH PC 270 FARMINGTON A VENUE SUITE 151 FARi\ITNGTON CT 06032 DANTELLA MASSIMILLA LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 6 KIMBALL LANE SillTE 200 LNNFIELDMA 01940 ATIORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: MARK A KEARJ;S LAW OFFICE MARK KEARNS POBOXJ7915 PORTLAND ME 04112 ATTORNEY FOR PARTY-IN-INTEI_li!ST BANK OF AMERICAN A JOSEPH PATRY BLANKRO.MELLP WATERGATE 600 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20037 . PROSE 6985 UNION PARK CENTER SIT 235 MIDALE UT 84047 MAINE DEPT OF LABOR BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT 47 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA ME 04333
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.
