Title: U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Keefe

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2020 ME 104 
Docket: 
Cum-19-489 
Submitted 
On Briefs: July 21, 2020 
Decided: 
August 13, 2020 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ., and HJELM, A.R.J.  
 
 
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A.  
 
v.  
 
JAMES D. KEEFE 
 
 
JABAR, J.  
 
[¶1]  U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation 
Trust (U.S. Bank), appeals from a judgment entered by the Superior Court 
(Cumberland County, Mills, J.) denying its motion to extend the time to file a 
notice of appeal as to its foreclosure complaint against James D. Keefe.  See M.R. 
App. P. 2B(d)(1).  U.S. Bank contends that the trial court erred by denying the 
motion to extend the time to file as untimely.  We affirm the judgment. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  During the bench trial held on U.S. Bank’s complaint, U.S. Bank was 
unable to produce admissible evidence sufficient to establish that it had 
standing to foreclose, and it moved for a dismissal of its complaint without 
prejudice.  Keefe, in turn, moved for a judgment as a matter of law, see M.R. 
 
2 
Civ. P. 50(d), or, alternatively, a dismissal with prejudice.  The trial court 
entered judgment on July 9, 2019, denying U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss 
without prejudice and granting Keefe’s motion for a judgment as a matter of 
law.  See M.R. Civ. P. 50(d).   
[¶3]  On July 29, 2019, within the time limit for filing a notice of appeal 
set forth in M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1), U.S. Bank filed a notice of appeal with the 
Superior Court.  However, relying on an erroneous fee figure published in 
Maine Judicial Branch materials, U.S. Bank remitted an insufficient filing fee 
with its notice of appeal.  The clerk returned the notice to U.S. Bank, along with 
a letter stating that the notice was not accepted and that any applicable filing 
deadlines had not changed.  U.S. Bank remitted the correct filing fee on 
August 5, 2019, including with the fee a letter explaining the reason for its 
mistake.  Although the August 5 notice of appeal was filed outside of the 
twenty-one-day window for filing, see M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1), U.S. Bank did not 
also file a motion with the trial court seeking an extension of the time to file, see 
M.R. App. P. 2B(d)(1).   
[¶4]  The Superior Court transmitted the case to the Supreme Judicial 
Court, sitting as the Law Court, on August 7, 2019.  On August 12, 2019, we 
entered an order dismissing the appeal as untimely.  See M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).  
 
3 
U.S. Bank filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Extend Time for 
Filing” in this Court on August 16, 2019.  We treated the motion as a motion to 
extend time for filing only1 and denied the motion, concluding that jurisdiction 
had reverted to the trial court on August 12.   
[¶5]  U.S. Bank filed a motion in the Superior Court seeking an extension 
of time to file its notice of appeal, see M.R. App. P. 2B(d)(1), on August 28, 2019.  
In an order entered October 30, 2019, the trial court denied U.S. Bank’s motion.  
The trial court determined that U.S. Bank had shown “good cause for the trial 
court to grant [U.S. Bank’s] motion to extend because [U.S. Bank] was misled by 
the court’s guide, which provided incorrect information.”2  However, the court 
also concluded that its authority to grant an extension of time, conferred by 
Rule 2B(d)(1), had expired prior to the filing of U.S. Bank’s August 28 motion 
and that the motion was therefore untimely.  U.S. Bank timely appealed the 
judgment.  See 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2020); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).   
                                         
1  Our August 27 order stated, “U.S. Bank Trust’s arguments do not challenge this Court’s reasoning 
or the propriety of the dismissal.  Instead, they seek an enlargement of time to file the appeal.”   
2  The online fee schedule published by the Judicial Branch has since been corrected and accurately 
reflects court fees as set forth in our recent administrative order.  Revised Court Fees Schedule and 
Document Management Procedures, Me. Admin. Order JB-05-26 (as amended by A. 7-20.2) (effective 
July 27, 2020).   
 
4 
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶6]  “We review a trial court’s interpretation of procedural rules de 
novo,” State v. St. Onge, 2011 ME 73, ¶ 17, 21 A.3d 1028, “and look to the plain 
language of the rules to determine their meaning,” Kline v. Burdin, 2017 ME 194, 
¶ 7, 170 A.3d 282 (quotation marks omitted). 
[¶7]  Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 2B(c)(1) provides, “The time 
within which an appeal may be taken in a civil case shall be 21 days after entry 
into the docket of the judgment or order appealed from, unless a shorter time 
is provided by law.”  Rule 2B(d)(1) then provides for an extension of this filing 
deadline:  
Upon a showing of good cause, the trial court may, before or after 
the time has expired, with or without motion and notice, extend the 
time for filing the notice of appeal otherwise allowed for a period 
not to exceed 21 days from the expiration of the original time for 
filing an appeal prescribed by Rule 2B(b) or 2B(c).   
 
M.R. App. P. 2B(d)(1)(emphasis added).  
 
[¶8]  Contrary to U.S. Bank’s contentions, the trial court did not err in 
concluding that U.S. Bank’s motion was untimely and that therefore the court 
did not have the authority under the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure to 
grant the motion.  See M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1), (d)(1).  The time period during 
which the trial court possessed authority to extend the time to file a notice of 
 
5 
appeal was not extended or enlarged by U.S. Bank’s intervening motion to the 
Law Court.  See Remick v. Erin, Inc., 414 A.2d 896, 897 (Me. 1980) (holding that 
an untimely notice of appeal precludes our review).   
 
[¶9]  The trial court’s finding of good cause for U.S. Bank’s original late 
filing does not demand vacatur of the trial court’s order, as U.S. Bank argues.  
U.S. Bank failed to timely file a motion to extend time in the appropriate court, 
even after it had been notified that its appeal had been dismissed and the 
matter remained in the Superior Court.  Our order denying U.S. Bank’s motion 
for reconsideration pointed out that our order did “not prevent” U.S. Bank from 
filing such a motion in the trial court, and it noted that U.S. Bank should have 
moved for an enlargement at the time it first filed its late notice of appeal.  U.S. 
Bank failed to timely move for an extension of time in the appropriate court.  
When, on August 28, U.S. Bank filed a motion in the correct court to enlarge the 
appeal period, the greatest period of enlargement that, by rule, the court could 
allow had already expired.  See Rice v. Amerling, 433 A.2d 388, 392-93 
(Me. 1981) (“[T]he application for the enlargement must be filed [within the 
time period prescribed by the Rules].  If that is not done, any subsequent 
determination of excusable neglect . . . is insufficient” to allow our review “as a 
result of the filing of the notice of appeal.” (emphasis omitted)). 
 
6 
[¶10]  The trial court did not err in its interpretation of the relevant Rules 
of Appellate Procedure or in denying U.S. Bank’s untimely motion for an 
extension of time. 
 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
John A. Doonan, Esq., and Reneau J. Longoria, Esq., Doonan, Graves & Longoria, 
LLC, Beverly, Massachusetts, for appellant U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. 
 
Jason J. Theobald, Esq., and Richard P. Olson, Esq., Curtis Thaxter LLC, Portland, 
for appellee James D. Keefe 
 
 
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number RE-2017-104 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY