Opinion ID: 1953373
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wachovia's Security Interest

Text: [¶ 23] Wachovia argues that R.C. Moore could not attach any funds in the Les-Care bank accounts at Wachovia because all the funds were subject to Wachovia's pre-existing perfected security interest resulting from the large debt owed to it by Les-Care. When a trustee defaults, the trustee is liable only to the extent that the defaulting trustee holds goods, effects or credits of the principal defendant otherwise available to satisfy the unsatisfied portion of final judgment. 14 M.R.S. § 2614 (2006). [¶ 24] Affirmative defenses must be stated in a responsive pleading pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 8(c) and 12(b). We have recognized that [g]enerally a failure to plead an affirmative defense results in the waiver of that defense. . . . Payson v. Cohen, 158 Me. 297, 301, 183 A.2d 510, 512 (1962). Even assuming, arguendo, that Wachovia had a security interest in the funds, it failed to raise the affirmative defense in a timely manner in its answer to the trustee summons and in its motion to set aside the default judgment. [¶ 25] At the time the trustee summons was served, Wachovia had not commenced a formal default action against Les-Care. Wachovia also admitted to having in its possession $6717.39 of Les-Care's funds, which it stated had been attached. We have previously held that a party is bound by an assertion of fact in a responsive pleading. See Bahre v. Liberty Group, Inc., 2000 ME 75, ¶ 15, 750 A.2d 558, 562. Furthermore, after service of the trustee summons, Wachovia allowed funds to leave the Les-Care account to pay unsecured third parties. [¶ 26] Recognizing that a trustee has [t]he burden of discharging himself by clear and definite statements, Thompson v. Dyer, 100 Me. 421, 427, 62 A. 76, 79 (1905), and for the reasons stated above, Wachovia has not preserved the defense of priority of security interest.