Opinion ID: 2969219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 3d ---.

Text: [¶8] Because standing is “a threshold concept dealing with the necessity for the invocation of the [c]ourt’s power to decide true disputes,” it is an issue cognizable at any stage of a legal proceeding, even after a completed trial. Nichols, 324 A.2d at 296. When discovered, a standing defect does not affect, let alone destroy, the court’s authority to decide disputes that fall within its subject matter jurisdiction. Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 2015 ME 108, ¶ 19, --- A.3d ---. A plaintiff’s lack of standing renders that plaintiff’s complaint nonjusticiable—i.e., incapable of judicial resolution. See id. ¶ 24. [¶9] Here, the court could not have entered a judgment on remand addressing the merits of the Bank’s foreclosure claim because the Bank failed to show the minimum interest that is a predicate to bringing that claim in the first place. Under these circumstances, the court properly disposed of the case by entering a dismissal without prejudice. See id. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 7 On the briefs: John D. Clifford, IV, Esq., Clifford & Golden, PA, Lisbon Falls, and Thomas A. Cox, Esq., Portland, for appellant Scott Greenleaf John J. Aromando, Esq., and Catherine R. Connors, Esq., Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, for appellee Bank of America, N.A. L. Scott Gould, Esq., Cape Elizabeth, for amici curiae Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization and National Consumer Law Center John A. Cunningham, Esq., and Ryan P. Dumais, Esq., Eaton Peabody, P.A., Brunswick, for amicus curiae Maine Bankers Association At oral argument: Gerald Petruccelli, Esq., Petruccelli, Martin & Haddow, Portland, for appellant Scott Greenleaf Elizabeth P. Papez, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, D.C., for Bank of America, N.A. Bridgton District Court docket number RE-2011-109 For Clerk Reference Only