U.S. Bank v. Lowell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-17-256 ./ U.S. BANK, NA., Plaintiff STATE OF MAINE Cumbe1fanrl ~... Clerk's Office V. ~ :i,1.6' i.Uld PENNY LOWELL, Defendant ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Jfl :J./ePfl\ RECEIVED Before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed no objection. In 2011, plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint involving the same parties, real property, note, mortgage, and alleged default. (POR-SC-RE-11-606 Compl. !! 1-11; CUM-RE-17-256 Compl. !! 1-15.) Based on defendant's submissions, the court concludes that this second foreclosure action is barred by the judgment dated March 4, 2014 in favor of defendant in the first case. See Pushard v. Bank of Am .• N.A., 2017 ME 230, !! 31-32, 175 A.3d 103; Fannie Mae v. Deschaine, 2017 ME 190, !! 22-23, 170 A.3d 230; Johnson v. Sarrison Constr. Corp., 1997 ME 220, !'16-8, 704 A.2d 866. The entry is Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant, Penny Lowell, and against Plaintiff, U.S. Bank, N.A., on Plaintiff's Complaint. Within 30 days of the date of this order, Defendant will file an affidavit of attorney's fees and court costs incurred in defending against this foreclosure complaint. 14 M.R.S. § 6101 (2017). t Date: June 26, 2018 ncy Mills Justice, Superio1 Entered on the Docket: ·.-.· .,.~/ 1 f 1

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.