The first mortgage secured a debt owed to Clifton A. Bond and the second secured a debt owed to Damariscotta Bank. The divorce order granted the marital home to Lois and ordered Frank to sell the business property and apply the proceeds first to satisfy the debts secured by the two mortgages on the business property and then to satisfy the debt secured by First National's mortgage on the marital home. By filing the writs, Damariscotta Bank obtained liens against the business property. Prior to the hearing on Damariscotta Bank's foreclosure action, counsel for Lois entered an appearance. Damariscotta Bank contends that recording the abstract of the divorce judgment did not create a lien against the business property and, therefore, the interest of Lois and First National created by the divorce court's judgment is subordinate to Damariscotta Bank's interest created by its subsequent recording of its writs of execution.
Statutory interpretation is a matter of law.
We review questions of law de novo. Because the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory interpretation to determine its meaning. There would be little purpose in recording an abstract of judgment, pursuant to the statute, if the notice provided by such recording affected only the rights of the parties to the divorce. Accordingly, we find no error in the court's judgment. William M. Avantaggio, Esq.