Opinion ID: 2782402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: [¶10] The mortgage allowed CitiMortgage to foreclose only if the conditions regarding the notice of default were met. Because the notice of default sent to the Chartiers failed to satisfy those conditions, CitiMortgage is not entitled to a judgment of foreclosure.6 The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded to the District Court for entry of judgment for the Chartiers. On the briefs: Joshua Klein-Golden, Esq., Clifford & Golden, PA, Lisbon Falls, for appellants Ronald Chartier and Amy Chartier Donald E. Frechette, Esq., Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for appellee CitiMortgage, Inc. Lewiston District Court docket number RE-2010-29 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY 6 Because we vacate the judgment on the ground that CitiMortgage’s notice of default did not comply with the terms of the mortgage, we need not reach the Chartiers’ alternative argument that the court erred at trial by admitting, in violation of M.R. Civ. P. 56(d), affidavits that were part of the record associated with the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. We note, however, that the purpose of that Rule is “to make it unnecessary to controvert facts for purposes of summary judgment solely because of concern about the possible preclusive effect of any admission of fact at trial or in other subsequent proceedings.” M.R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Note to 2011 amend. That purpose is not implicated where, as here, a trial court considers, but does not give preclusive effect to, sworn affidavits submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment.