FINDINGS, DECISION AND JUDGMENT
matter came before the Court for trial on October 5, 2016.
The issues identified in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and in
the Court's pretrial order dated April 6, 2016 were
addressed during the course of the trial. In addition, the
issues raised in the Party-in-Interest's Crossclaim were
also presented to the Court for its determination.
Myles Gardner and Juanita Littlefield appeared at the trial.
Defendant David Littlefield failed to appear at the trial,
and had previously also failed to appear during earlier
pretrial conferences. 
upon the evidence presented at trial, the Court makes the
following factual findings.
Kenneth and Pamela Theobald are Co-Trustees of The Theobald
Trust, (hereinafter referred to as "the
Trust"). The Trust became the owner of a
certain parcel of land in Brooks, Maine on or about November
30, 1998 through a conveyance by warranty deed from the
Plaintiffs, Kenneth and Pamela Theobald.
about April 2, 2014 the Trust entered into a land installment
contract with the named defendants, David Littlefield,
Juanita Littlefield (known as Juanita Gardiner at the time),
and Myles Gardiner with regard to the same premises located
in Brooks Maine. At the time the Contract was signed,
the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs $10, 000 as a payment
toward the total purchase price of $199, 000. Under the terms
of the Contract, the Defendants were to pay monthly
installment payments in the amount of $1000 toward the
purchase price, as well as additional monthly payments of
$200 toward real estate taxes and $141 for insurance
premiums. The Defendants were also solely responsible for
payment of any and all utilities for the premises.
Contract also contained a provision prohibiting either the
buyer or seller from permitting any lien or encumbrance to be
placed on the premises. The Contract specifically identified
the mortgage, in the then current amount of approximately
$129, 700, held by Party-in-Interest, Bangor Savings Bank as
an existing encumbrance on the premises, but further
indicated that the seller was aware of no other encumbrance
on the property.
the Contract identifies the mortgage held by Bangor Savings
Bank, Bangor Savings Bank was not informed of the Contract by
the Plaintiffs at the time it was entered into with the
Defendants, or at any time until well after the pending
Complaint in this matter had been initiated. Moreover, the
Plaintiffs failed to record the Contract with the Registry of
Deeds in accordance with 33 MRSA §482(2). The Court
finds that such conduct on the Plaintiffs' part violated
the provisions of the mortgage (Interveners Exhibit 3) and
reasonably required Bangor Savings Bank to formally intervene
to protect its interest in the property in accordance with
specific Uniform Covenants outlined in the mortgage.
Court finds that Bangor Savings Bank incurred reasonable
attorney's fees in intervening and protecting its
interests in this matter in the total amount of $1362.96.
Plaintiffs failed to timely pay the property taxes due on the
premises at issue in this case which led to the recording of
a tax lien by the Town of Brooks. At about the same time the
Defendants became aware of the existence of the Town's
tax lien in January 2015, the Defendants ceased making
installment payments to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the
Contract. Although the details regarding the subsequent
arrangements between the Plaintiffs and the Town relating to
outstanding tax liabilities are not entirely clear, the Town
has not proceeded with any municipal foreclosure of the
premises. The Plaintiffs entered into some satisfactory
agreement with the municipality with respect to the payment
of the taxes due.
the subsequent arrangements between the Plaintiffs and the
Town of Brooks regarding satisfaction of the outstanding tax
liabilities, the Defendants did not resume with their
installment payments to the Plaintiffs. The evidence was not
disputed that the Defendants have failed to make any
installment payments to the Plaintiffs since January 2015.
The unpaid monthly installment payment of $1000 plus the
additional $200 payment reflecting the real estate tax
contribution for the 22 months from January 2015 through to
the date of trial would total $26, 400.
Juanita Littlefield has continued to reside at the premises
at least through the time of trial. The evidence would
suggest that Defendant David Littlefield had abandoned the
premises long before the trial in this matter. Defendant
Juanita Littlefield and Myles Gardiner were divorced
subsequent to entering into the Contract, and it is not clear
whether Defendant Myles Gardiner continued to reside at the
photographs introduced into evidence demonstrate that the
premises, at least with regard to certain rooms and the porch
area had been subjected to a considerable amount of trash and
debris. The Court was not presented with sufficiently
specific evidence regarding damage or disrepair to the
premises, or the amount which might be required to address
any such claims.
Court finds that the Plaintiffs have incurred reasonable
attorney's fees in pursuit of its foreclosure Complaint