Opinion ID: 2679896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Requirement to Mediate

Text: [¶16] Bayview argues that the court dismissed its complaint based on a mistaken view of the law, in that mediation was not required in this case. This argument fails because Bayview failed to preserve this issue by raising it in the trial court. See Dobson v. Dep’t of the Sec’y of State, 2008 ME 137, ¶ 3, 955 A.2d 266 (declining to reach a constitutional challenge raised for the first time on appeal); MP Assocs. v. Liberty, 2001 ME 22, ¶ 18, 771 A.2d 1040 (holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal was not properly preserved). Bayview acquiesced in the court’s mediation order, and raised no objection to mediation. Indeed, Bayview joined the Bartletts’ motion to enlarge the time to respond to Bayview’s motion for summary judgment so that the parties could engage in mediation. 2. Court’s Understanding of Ramifications of Dismissal with Prejudice [¶17] Bayview next argues that the court did not fully appreciate the legal ramifications of a dismissal with prejudice. Bayview contends that the trial court 5 Bayview also purports to challenge the District Court’s October 4, 2012, order imposing sanctions on Bayview, but Bayview’s legal arguments focus on the court’s later order dismissing the case with prejudice. Bayview has waived any challenge to the propriety of the sanctions imposed prior to the order of dismissal by failing to adequately develop any such argument in briefing. See Mehlhorn v. Derby, 2006 ME 110, ¶ 11, 905 A.2d 290 (citing United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990)). 11 “failed to analyze the potential effect its order of dismissal may have on [Bayview],” in that “a dismissal with prejudice in a foreclosure action may forever bar a lender from obtaining a judgment of foreclosure and sale against a debtor.” See Johnson v. Samson Constr. Corp., 1997 ME 220, ¶ 8, 704 A.2d 866 (holding that dismissal with prejudice of a foreclosure action on an accelerated debt barred a later action to recover on the debt).6 [¶18] Contrary to Bayview’s contentions, there is nothing to suggest that the court did not understand the effect of its order of dismissal.7 Indeed, the court indicated that it was “aware of the gravity of the sanction it is imposing” in dismissing Bayview’s complaint. In essence, Bayview proposes that we treat a dismissal order as an abuse of discretion unless the trial court explicitly discusses the potential res judicata effects of its order. We decline to create such a rule. 3. Reliance on the Bartletts’ Motions [¶19] Bayview further argues that the court abused its discretion in relying on the Bartletts’ motions to dismiss, which Bayview contends were improperly 6 The possible res judicata effect of the dismissal in light of Johnson v. Samson Construction Corp., 1997 ME 220, 704 A.2d 866, is not before us, and we do not address that issue. 7 Bayview contends that the court’s statement, in its order imposing sanctions on Bayview, that Bayview may not collect attorney fees or costs pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 6101 (2013) suggests that the court did not understand the law applicable to the exercise of its discretion because that result “would arguably go without saying with a dismissal with prejudice.” Section 6101 provides that “[i]f the mortgagee does not prevail, or upon evidence that the action was not brought in good faith, the court may . . . deny in full or in part the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the mortgagee.” Id. The court’s clarification that Bayview is not entitled to attorney fees does not call into question its understanding of the applicable law. 12 filed, citing 14 M.R.S. § 6321-A(9) (2013) and M.R. Civ. P. 93(d)(1). Section 6321-A(9) provides that “[f]or any foreclosure complaint filed after January 1, 2010[,] that is scheduled for mediation in accordance with this section, a final judgment may not issue until a mediator’s report has been completed pursuant to subsection 13.” Rule 93(d)(1) provides that when mediation is ordered by the court pursuant to subsections (c)(2) or (q), no dispositive motions or requests for admissions shall be filed until five (5) days after mediation is completed and a final mediator’s report is filed with the court, or until the court orders that mediation shall not occur. See also M.R. Civ. P. 93 Advisory Notes January 2010 (indicating that Rule 93(d)(1) “is designed to allow the parties to focus on the mediation process”). [¶20] Here, section 6321-A(9) does not apply because the complaint was filed on November 23, 2009. In any event, section 6321-A(9) would not prohibit the entry of final judgment because multiple interim mediator’s reports were completed.8 With respect to Rule 93(d)(1)’s restriction on “dispositive motions,” the Bartletts’ motions, although styled as motions to dismiss, were in effect motions for sanctions. It would be irrational to interpret Rule 93 to permit the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, but to prohibit the aggrieved party from requesting such sanctions. See M.R. Civ. P. 93(j). Furthermore, as Bayview 8 The statute does not distinguish between final and interim mediators’ reports. See 14 M.R.S. § 6321-A(9), (13) (2013). 13 concedes, the court had the authority to dismiss Bayview’s complaint sua sponte pursuant to section 6321-A(12) and Rule 93(j). [¶21] Bayview also suggests that “factual inaccuracies” in the Bartletts’ motions “effectively tainted the trial court’s view” of the case. Specifically, Bayview contends that the Bartletts misrepresented that Cheryl Bartlett was present at the April 9, 2012, mediation session and that the Bartletts would have been incapable of accepting the proposed loan modification because they received it after the date the first modified payment was due. Even assuming that the Bartletts’ motions contained factual inaccuracies, there is no indication that the court relied on the factual representations in the Bartletts’ motions. Bayview does not argue that the court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous. See Bradbury, 2013 ME 72, ¶ 12, 72 A.3d 512. 4. Weighing of Prejudice to Bayview and Windfall to Bartletts [¶22] Bayview next contends that the court abused its discretion by failing to appropriately balance the prejudice to Bayview and the “windfall” to the Bartletts stemming from its order of dismissal. Specifically, Bayview argues (1) that the court ignored that Bayview attended the January 30, 2012, mediation session and offered the Bartletts a loan modification; (2) that Bayview’s failure to appear at the April 9, 2012, and February 11, 2013, mediation sessions were “unfortunate and unintentional accidents”; and (3) that the court “grossly 14 overestimated the purported ‘harm’ suffered” by the Bartletts because they had received a “windfall” in the form of “three years of free rent.” [¶23] Although a party’s participation in one mediation session and offer of a loan modification could potentially constitute some evidence of good faith, it would not necessarily excuse the party’s failure to appear at three other mediation sessions. The court considered and rejected Bayview’s excuses for its failure to appear at the final two mediation sessions. With respect to the final mediation session, the court concluded that even if the facts were as Bayview alleged, Bayview’s absence was inexcusable in light of Bayview’s failure to appear at two earlier mediation sessions. The court reasoned that Bayview’s repeated failures to participate in mediation had deprived the Bartletts of opportunities to resolve the case, and that lesser sanctions and the court’s warning had been ineffective in altering Bayview’s behavior. The court’s “weighing of the applicable facts and choices [was] within the bounds of reasonableness” and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Bradbury, 2013 ME 72, ¶ 12, 72 A.3d 512. 5. Delegation of Fact-Finding Role to Mediators [¶24] Finally, Bayview argues that the Court inappropriately “delegated” its fact-finding role to the mediators and suggests that the court should have held a testimonial hearing. Because Bayview raised this issue for the first time in its 15 reply brief, Bayview has failed to preserve this argument. See Baillargeon v. Estate of Daigle, 2010 ME 127, ¶ 14 n.2, 8 A.3d 709. [¶25] To the extent that a testimonial hearing would have permitted Bayview to show that its third failure to appear was the result of an inadvertent error of counsel, the court concluded that such an error was not excusable in light of Bayview’s previous failures to appear at mediation. Moreover, Bayview does not contest any of the material facts found by the court. The court did not err or abuse its discretion. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Andrew W. Sparks, Esq., Julia G. Pitney, Esq. and Christopher L. Brooks, Esq., Drummond & Dummond, LLP, Portland, for appellant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC Peter Clifford, Esq., Clifford & Clifford, LLC, Kennebunk, for appellees John H. Bartlett and Cheryl J. Bartlett At oral argument: Andrew W. Sparks, Esq., for appellant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC Peter Clifford, Esq., for appellees John H. Bartlett and Cheryl J. Bartlett York District Court docket number RE-2009-159 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY