ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS OF FACT
E. Walker Justice, Maine Superior Court
the Court is Defendant's Motion for Additional Findings
of Fact pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52, filed on October 14,
2016. Plaintiff requests that the Court make additional
findings of fact with respect to the October 5, 2016,
Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale. After a careful review of
the parties' submissions, the Court denies the Motion for
the reasons stated below.
October 14, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion for Additional
Findings of Fact. Defendant attached to his Motion, proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law, which provided:
1. Plaintiff has been the owner and mortgagee of the mortgage
note and mortgage deed at issue since it acquired them on May
2. Although the Notice of Default dated November 20, 2013
does not identify Plaintiff as the mortgagee, it satisfies
the requirements of 14 MRS §6111(1-A).
3. Although said Notice of Default was served during the
pendency of another foreclosure action, for which the
mortgage note at issue was already accelerated, the 35-day
requirement of 14 MRS §6111(1) is satisfied.
4. Although the Notice of Dismissal for the then pending
foreclosure action was filed on February 6, 2014, and the
Summons and Complaint for Foreclosure for the current action
served on February 27, 2014, the 35-day requirement of 14 MRS
§6111(1) is satisfied.
5. Although said Notice of Default provides a precise cure
amount, which amount is then qualified by a statement reading
"hence, if you pay the Cure Amount shown above, an
adjustment may be necessary because of "interest, late
charges, and other charges" after we receive your check,
in which case we will inform you before depositing your check
for collection", it satisfies the requirements of 14 MRS
(Def.'s Proposed Findings of Fact). On November 4, 2016,
Plaintiff filed an Objection to Defendant's Motion for
Findings of Additional Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Defendant filed his response on November 16, 2016.
Civ. P. 52 allows a party to make a motion for additional
findings of fact. However, the court need not grant every
request. In re Jacob B., 2008 ME 168, ¶ 15, 959
A.2d 734 ("A trial court is not required to make further
findings in response to every post-judgment request for
findings pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52(a)."). M.R. Civ. P.
52 is not a procedural device used to strong-arm the court to
further explain its reasoning or its rationale supporting its
decision. Wandishin v. Wandishin, 2009 ME 73, ¶
19, 976 A.2d 949 ("Once the court has found the facts,
it is not required to explain the rationale used to support
each finding of fact or conclusion of law."). Motions
brought under M.R. Civ. P. 52 do not provide a forum for the
unsuccessful party to reargue their case. Id.
("Requests for additional fact-findings pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. 52(b) should not be used to attempt to require the
court to explain its reasoning in reaching a particular
result or to reargue points that were contested at trial and
have been resolved by the court's decision.").
Defendant's Motion is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to
reargue his position from trial and to point out the mistakes
he alleges that the Court made in its previous decision. For
example, Defendant would like the Court to find that
"[a]lthough the Notice of Default dated
20, 2013 does not identify Plaintiff as the mortgagee, it
satisfies the requirements of 14 MRS §6111(1-A)."
Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact are replete with other
similar proposed findings. Plaintiff was afforded ample
opportunity at trial to argue these positions, and through
his Rule 52 Motion has attempted to disregard the Court's
Decision and to continue litigating his case. While
Defendant's zeal on behalf of his cause is commendable,
his Motion is not effectively or ...