Case Title: Bangor Savings Bank v. Richard

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2014-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2014 ME 20 
Docket: 
And-13-334 
Submitted 
   On Briefs: January 28, 2014 
Decided: 
February 11, 2014 
 
 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. 
 
 
BANGOR SAVINGS BANK 
 
v. 
 
ROBIN N. RICHARD 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
[¶1]  Robin N. Richard appeals from a judgment entered by the District 
Court (Lewiston, Lawrence, J.) granting Bangor Savings Bank’s motion for 
summary judgment on its foreclosure complaint.  Richard contends that the court 
erred in granting the Bank’s motion for summary judgment because (1) the Bank 
improperly served its motion for summary judgment directly upon Richard and not 
her attorney, (2) discovery in the case was not complete, (3) service of the notice of 
Richard’s right to cure pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 6111 (2013) was flawed, and 
(4) there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the amount owed under the 
mortgage. 
 
[¶2]  In the context of a residential mortgage foreclosure, “certain minimum 
facts must be included in a mortgage holder’s statement of material facts on 
 
2 
summary judgment.”  HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Gabay, 2011 ME 101, ¶ 10, 
28 A.3d 1158.  These minimum facts include the amount due on the mortgage 
note.  Id.  The Bank’s statement of material facts indicates that the amount due on 
the note is $389,302.08.  The affidavit cited to support this fact states that the 
amount due on the note is $384,644.05, exclusive of legal fees.  The loan payoff 
statement cited in the affidavit in support of the amount owed states that the 
balance due is $384,660.05, exclusive of legal fees.  Applying the rules of 
summary judgment strictly as we must in a residential foreclosure, id. ¶ 9, the Bank 
did not set forth a properly supported statement of fact regarding the amount due 
on the note, and it remains an unresolved issue of material fact.  
 
[¶3]  We do not address Richard’s remaining contentions because they are 
unpreserved due to Richard’s failure to timely file a properly supported opposing 
statement of material facts.  See Foster v. Oral Surgery Assocs., P.A., 2008 ME 21, 
¶ 22, 940 A.2d 1102 (“An issue raised for the first time on appeal is not properly 
preserved for appellate review.”).  Furthermore, assuming, arguendo, that 
Richard’s counsel had appeared generally and that the Bank had been properly 
notified of that appearance, Richard demonstrates no prejudice from service of the 
summary judgment documents on her rather than on her retained counsel and no 
prejudice from the differing addresses, all directed to her property, that were 
referenced in the notice pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 6111.  In addition, Richard did not 
 
3 
avail herself of the existing procedure for deferring consideration of summary 
judgment when discovery is allegedly incomplete, see M.R. Civ. P. 56(f).  We 
need not address her other arguments that summary judgment was improper, as 
they do not impact the merits of the Bank’s claim other than the issue of the sums 
due, which must be addressed on remand.  
The entry is: 
Judgment vacated and remanded to the District 
Court.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Brian D. Condon, Esq., Law Office of Brian D. Condon, 
Winthrop, for appellant Robin N. Richard 
 
John R. Canders, Esq., and Ryan P. Dumais, Esq., Eaton 
Peabody, P.A., Bangor, for appellee Bangor Savings Bank  
 
 
 
Lewiston District Court docket number RE-2012-114 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY