Case Title: Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. deBree

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2012-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT     
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2012 ME 34 
Docket: 
Cum-11-337 
Argued: 
February 16, 2012 
Decided: 
March 13, 2012 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, 
JJ. 
 
 
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA 
 
v. 
 
DAVID E. deBREE et al. 
 
 
SAUFLEY, C.J. 
 
[¶1]  David E. and Lee Anne deBree appeal from a summary judgment of 
foreclosure entered in the District Court (Portland, Moskowitz, J.) in favor of Wells 
Fargo Bank, NA, on its complaint.  Because we conclude that the Bank failed to 
offer evidence that it owns the deBrees’ mortgage and note, we vacate the 
summary judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
[¶2]  On January 19, 2010, the Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure against 
the deBrees and others who might claim an interest in property in Windham owned 
by the deBrees.1  The complaint alleged that the deBrees were in default of a 
mortgage note owned by the Bank because they ceased making monthly mortgage 
                                         
1  Although the deBrees also live in Windham, the property at issue is not their residence. 
 
2 
payments in April 2009.  The Bank sought possession of the deBrees’ property and 
alleged that the deBrees owe the bank $129,174.12, which includes accrued 
interest, late charges, escrow advances, and inspection fees.  The complaint alleged 
that Wells Fargo Bank, NA, was “Successor by Merger to Wells Fargo Home 
Mortgage, Inc.” 
 
[¶3]  In their answer, the deBrees denied that they were in default.  They 
also pleaded that they were “unaware of the truth or falsity of” the allegation that 
the Bank was successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., and they 
therefore denied the allegation. 
[¶4]  The Bank moved for summary judgment and submitted a statement of 
material facts, see M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(1), supported by the affidavit of Herman 
John Kennerty, vice president of loan documentation at the Bank.  The affidavit 
stated that the originally executed note was payable to Residential Mortgage 
Services, Inc., and that the “Plaintiff is the current holder of the Note and the 
Mortgage and entitled to enforce by virtue of an Assignment of Mortgage dated on 
or about May 19, 2003.”  Kennerty attached to his affidavit a copy of the 2003 
assignment, which transferred the rights on the note and mortgage from Residential 
Mortgage Services, Inc., not to Wells Fargo Bank, NA, but rather to Wells Fargo 
Home Mortgage, Inc. 
 
3 
[¶5]  Kennerty’s affidavit did not, in any way, address the distinction 
between Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, NA.  Nor did 
the Bank provide any other evidence in support of summary judgment to 
demonstrate that it was, as stated in the complaint, “Successor by Merger to Wells 
Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.” 
 
[¶6]  Based on the record before it, the court entered a summary judgment 
for the Bank.  After the court amended the judgment in ways unrelated to the 
question at issue, the deBrees appealed. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
 
[¶7]  We review the motion court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo to 
determine whether the properly presented evidence, viewed in the light most 
favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered, demonstrates that 
“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact . . . and that any party is entitled 
to a judgment as a matter of law.”  M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Chase Home Fin. LLC 
v. Higgins, 2009 ME 136, ¶¶ 10-11, 985 A.2d 508.  For a mortgage holder to 
obtain summary judgment in a foreclosure action, its statement of material facts 
and supporting evidence must include, among other things, “properly presented 
proof of ownership of the mortgage note and the mortgage, including all 
assignments and endorsements of the note and the mortgage.”  Higgins, 2009 ME 
136, ¶ 11, 985 A.2d 508; see 14 M.R.S. § 6321 (2011). 
 
4 
 
[¶8]  The summary judgment record in this matter contains no evidence that 
Wells Fargo Bank, NA—rather than Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.—is the 
owner of the deBrees’ mortgage and mortgage note.  The Bank simply did not 
offer evidence of the transfer of the note and mortgage from Wells Fargo Home 
Mortgage, Inc., to Wells Fargo Bank, NA.  Without that evidence, the Bank has 
not established entitlement to a judgment as a matter of law, and summary 
judgment is not appropriate.  See M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Higgins, 2009 ME 136, ¶ 11, 
985 A.2d 508. 
 
[¶9]  Recognizing the gap in the evidence of ownership, the Bank argues that 
the deBrees waived their right to raise the issue by failing to contest ownership in 
opposing summary judgment.  In a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, that 
argument cannot prevail.  To be clear, regardless of any deficiencies in an 
opponent’s response to summary judgment, a plaintiff seeking summary judgment 
on a complaint for foreclosure can prevail only upon satisfying its independent 
obligation to provide a statement of material facts that refers to evidence 
supporting all elements of its claim.  See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Gabay, 2011 
ME 101, ¶ 8, 28 A.3d 1158; Higgins, 2009 ME 136, ¶ 11, 985 A.2d 508; Deutsche 
Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Raggiani, 2009 ME 120, ¶¶ 5-8, 985 A.2d 1.  Thus, 
whether or not the deBrees alerted the motion court to the lack of evidence of 
ownership, the Bank was required to provide evidentiary support for its statement 
 
5 
that it is the owner of the note and mortgage in order to prevail on summary 
judgment.  See Gabay, 2011 ME 101, ¶ 8, 28 A.3d 1158; Raggiani, 2009 ME 120, 
¶¶ 5-8, 985 A.2d 1.  The Bank did not provide this evidentiary support, and thus its 
waiver argument fails.  See Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, ¶ 9, 770 
A.2d 653 (holding that a fact offered by the moving party on summary judgment 
without evidentiary support “is not properly before the court and cannot provide a 
basis for judgment”). 
 
[¶10]  In an alternate attempt to cure its failure to provide evidence of 
ownership, the Bank now asks us to take judicial notice of the merger that 
allegedly resulted in its ownership of the note and mortgage.  See M.R. Evid. 201.  
The Bank did not, however, move for the District Court to take judicial notice of 
these facts as a substitute for the evidence of mortgage and note ownership that is 
ordinarily required of a plaintiff seeking a summary judgment of foreclosure.  See 
id.; Higgins, 2009 ME 136, ¶ 11, 985 A.2d 508.  Nor did the Bank present any 
factual foundation upon which either the court or we could take such judicial 
notice.  See M.R. Evid. 201(b)-(d).  Thus, even if we were to consider taking 
judicial notice as requested by the Bank, the record before us on appeal is devoid 
of the necessary foundation for us to do so.  M.R. Evid. 201(b)-(d), (f); see 
Higgins, 2009 ME 136, ¶ 11, 985 A.2d 508. 
 
6 
 
[¶11]  In conclusion, because the Bank has failed to supply evidence that it 
owns the deBrees’ note and mortgage—a showing that is necessary to its 
foreclosure claim—it has failed to demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of 
material fact and it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.  See M.R. 
Civ. P. 56(c); Higgins, 2009 ME 136, ¶ 11, 985 A.2d 508; Raggiani, 2009 ME 120, 
¶¶ 5-8, 985 A.2d 1.  We vacate the entry of summary judgment and remand the 
matter for further proceedings. 
The entry is: 
Summary judgment vacated.  Remanded for 
further proceedings. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs and at oral argument: 
 
William L. Vickerson, Esq., Portland, for appellants David E. 
deBree and Lee Anne deBree 
 
Mark A. Darling, Esq., Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Lynnfield, 
Massachusetts, for appellee Wells Fargo Bank, NA 
 
 
 
Portland District Court docket number RE-2010-20 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY