Opinion ID: 4521882
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Initial Proceedings Following Remand

Text: [¶5] Upon remand, the court held a status conference on October 14, 2014, set a discovery deadline of March 6, 2015, and scheduled a judicial settlement conference to be held “in March including [a] Bank official with authority to settle.” On February 3, 2015, the Bank—to address the issue of its standing in light of our decision in Bank of America, N.A., v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, 96 A.3d 700—filed a motion to amend its complaint and to stay the foreclosure proceeding. Manning opposed the Bank’s motion and, instead, moved for summary judgment because the Bank lacked standing to foreclose. See M.R. Civ. P. 56. The Bank opposed the motion for summary judgment and moved to voluntarily dismiss its complaint without prejudice.1 See M.R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Manning opposed the requested dismissal. In its motion, the Bank acknowledged that the originating lender, Mortgage Lenders Network 1 USA, Inc., was no longer in business and requested that, in light of our decisions in Bank of America, 4 [¶6] On June 1, 2015, the court entered an order addressing the parties’ pending motions. First, the court denied Manning’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that, because it “lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction,” it could not enter a final judgment on the merits of the Bank’s complaint. Second, the court granted the Bank’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint without prejudice.2 [¶7] Two weeks later, on June 15, Manning filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order, which the Bank opposed. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5). Manning argued that the court’s June 1 order incorrectly implied that the court had heard oral argument from the parties, and he asserted that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over all residential foreclosures. [¶8] On July 1, 2015, Manning filed a letter alerting the court to the then-pending appeal in Bank of America v. Greenleaf, 2015 ME 127, 124 A.3d 1122 (Greenleaf II), and suggested that, because the anticipated decision in Greenleaf II “may address or inform the question posed here: whether a lack of standing removes subject matter jurisdiction,” the court stay all briefing on his N.A., v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, 96 A.3d 700 and CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chartier, 2015 ME 17, 111 A.3d 39, the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 2 In its order, the court also declined to award costs or fees to Manning. 5 motion to reconsider until a decision in Greenleaf II was issued. On July 16, 2015, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for reconsideration until thirty days after the decision in Greenleaf II was issued. [¶9] We issued our decision in Greenleaf II on September 22, 2015. [¶10] On October 15, 2015, the court granted Manning’s “consented-to” motion to continue the stay until November 6, 2015. A week later, the court ordered that a judicial settlement conference be set for “early December” and that the case remain stayed until after the settlement conference. [¶11] On December 4, 2015, Manning requested a conference with the court and counsel for the parties. On February 26, 2016, the Bank objected to Manning’s request and moved to lift the July 16, 2015, stay on Manning’s motion for reconsideration. The Bank pointed out that it had been eight months since Manning filed his motion and five months since the decision in Greenleaf II was issued. Manning opposed the Bank’s motion to lift the stay. [¶12] Four months later, on July 13, 2016, the Bank filed a letter with the court, inquiring about the status of the pending motions regarding Manning’s request for a conference and the Bank’s motion to lift the July 16, 2015, stay. 6 On July 25, 2016, the court ordered that a settlement conference be scheduled “within the next sixty days.”