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