Opinion ID: 4545925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Judgment Motions

Text: [¶6] On May 28, 2019, Wilmington moved to amend the judgment. See M.R. Civ. P. 59(e). Wilmington argued that the reference to Marix in the records did “not indicate a lack of trustworthiness” and, in support, requested that the court take judicial notice of documents on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website.3 Wilmington asserted that these documents demonstrated that Marix and the other loan servicers at issue were owned by the same parent corporation and “were effectively the same company.” Wilmington further argued that the notice of default and right to cure had complied with the notice requirements of 14 M.R.S. § 6111 and that Berry’s 3Wilmington provided a hyperlink to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) website, but it did not provide any physical documents to the trial court. 5 receipt of the notice “may be presumed from [the] mailing.” Berry opposed the motion. [¶7] On June 13, 2019, Berry filed a motion seeking an award of attorney fees because Wilmington “d[id] not prevail.” 14 M.R.S. § 6101. Wilmington objected, arguing that an award of attorney fees was unwarranted because it did not act in “bad faith” during the proceedings. [¶8] The court held a hearing on July 17, 2019, and, on September 27, 2019, entered orders on the two pending post-judgment motions. In one order, the court denied Wilmington’s motion to amend, concluding that “the unexplained appearance of M[a]rix Servicing in [the business records] raises a host of doubts about the reliability of the documents.” The court also declined to take judicial notice of the documents offered by Wilmington, reasoning that such notice “would not resolve the trustworthiness issues raised by” the reference to Marix in the records or “the failure of the witness . . . to even recognize the name [Marix].” In a separate order, the court granted Berry’s motion for attorney fees, concluding that “from the plain language of the statute . . . [Berry] need not prove bad faith or extraordinary circumstances.”4 Wilmington timely appealed. See M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(2)(D). 4 On October 15, 2019, the court entered an amended order on Berry’s motion for attorney fees, in which the court made spelling and grammatical changes. 6