Opinion ID: 4540036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of the Merger

Text: [¶13] With regard to the 2012 assignment, the court properly found that BOA, as Fleet’s successor by merger, would have the “authority to assign right, title and interest in the mortgage only if the assignor actually owned the right, title, and interest it purported to assign.” [¶14] Mergers of national banks are governed by The National Bank Act, which provides, in part: The corporate existence of each of the merging banks or banking associations participating in such merger shall be merged into and continued in the receiving association and such receiving association shall be deemed to be the same corporation as each bank or banking association participating in the merger. All rights, franchises, and interests of the individual merging banks or banking associations in and to every type of property (real, personal, and mixed) and choses in action shall be transferred to and vested in the receiving association by virtue of such merger without any deed or other transfer. 12 U.S.C.S. § 215a(e) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 116-140) (emphases added). [¶15] Similarly, 9-B M.R.S. § 357 (2020) governs the effect of bank mergers in Maine. That statute provides that, upon a merger, [e]ven though the charter of any participating or converting institution has been terminated, the resulting institution shall be deemed to be a continuation of the entity of the participating or 9 converting institution such that all property of the participating or converting institution, including rights, titles and interests in and to all property of whatsoever kind . . . shall immediately by act of law and without any conveyance or transfer and without further act or deed be vested in and continue to be that property of the resulting institution; and such institution . . . shall continue to have and succeed to all the rights, obligations and relations of the participating or converting institution. 9-B M.R.S. § 357(1) (emphases added). [¶16] Accordingly, Fleet’s right, title, and interest in the mortgage continued in BOA, the receiving entity, automatically upon the merger, as a matter of both state and federal law. See 12 U.S.C.S. § 215a(e); 9-B M.R.S. § 357(1); Nat’l City Mortg. Co. v. Tidwell, 749 S.E.2d 730, 733 (Ga. 2013) (“[F]ederal banking law provides that the corporate existence of merging banks shall continue in the ‘receiving association,’ which is considered the same corporation as its predecessor.”); see also White v. Bank of Am., N.A., 597 F. App’x 1015, 1019-20 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that, under federal law and the applicable state law, “when [Bank #1] merged with and into [Bank #2], the rights and interests [Bank #1] had in the Security Deed were transferred to and vested in [Bank #2] without any further deed or transfer” and Bank #2 was therefore authorized to institute foreclosure proceedings). [¶17] The signature on the 2012 assignment signifies that BOA signed as a successor entity to Fleet. Beedle did not deny that Fleet was acquired by 10 and merged into BOA. Indeed, Beedle’s objection to the admission of the 2012 assignment was predicated on the very fact of that merger. Beedle claimed that, because of the merger, Fleet no longer existed, rendering BOA’s signature as successor to Fleet ineffective. BOA, however, as Fleet’s successor by merger, is statutorily “deemed to be a continuation of [Fleet].” 9-B M.R.S. § 357(1). The signature on the notarized document, reading “Bank of America, N.A. SBM [successor by merger] to Fleet National Bank,” is itself evidence establishing that there was a merger between Fleet and BOA, and Beedle does not contend otherwise.6 Thus, the court misapprehended the nature of Beedle’s objection and consequently erred when it concluded that “proof of the merger is the missing link in the ownership chain.” [¶18] BOA’s signature as Fleet’s successor by merger on the 2012 assignment was enough to establish BOA’s ownership and authority to execute the assignment to Assignee #1 because Fleet’s interest in the mortgage vested in and was transferred to BOA automatically upon the merger by operation of law. As Beedle’s attorney asserted at trial, “Fleet National Bank did not own the mortgage [in 2012] 6 because it became part of Bank of America, as is evidenced by the signature.” Additionally, in his opposition to U.S. Bank’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment, Beedle stated that he was not challenging U.S. Bank’s standing. Because, to have standing, a plaintiff in a foreclosure action must own the mortgage, see Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, ¶ 12, 96 A.3d 700, this must be seen as an additional acknowledgment by Beedle that U.S. Bank is the mortgagee. 11