ESTATE OF JOHN R. BARRON
SHAPIRO & MORLEY, LLC, et al.
Briefs: February 10, 2017
A. Kearns, Esq., and Mark L. Randall, Esq., Portland, for
appellant Estate of John R. Barron.
J. Shub, Esq., Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP,
Portland, for appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
D. Hadiaris, Esq., Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC,
Portland, for appellee Shapiro & Morley, LLC.
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
The Estate of John R. Barron appeals from a summary judgment
entered in the Superior Court (York County, Douglas,
J.) in favor of Shapiro & Morley, LLC, and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A., on a complaint filed by John R. Barron,
alleging conversion, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, unfair trade practices, and civil conspiracy.
Barron's claims arose out of alleged delays in the
distribution of surplus funds following the sale of
Barron's home after a foreclosure. We affirm the
The summary judgment record contains the following facts
taken from the parties' statements of material fact that
were admitted or not properly objected to by Barron, the
opposing party. See Murdock v. Thome, 2016 ME 41,
¶ 2, 135 A.3d 96. In addition, Barron's brief on
appeal states that "[t]he 'Facts' are recited by
the Trial Court in its March 25, 2016 Decision and Order,
" apparently accepting the facts stated by the trial
court, but disagreeing with its legal conclusions.
Shapiro & Morley, a South Portland law firm, represented
JPMorgan Chase Bank in a foreclosure action against John R.
Barron in the District Court (Springvale). On July 19, 2013,
the District Court issued a judgment in favor of Chase and
against Barron in the foreclosure action. Barron failed to
redeem the property during the 180-day redemption period
stated in the foreclosure judgment. Chase, by and through its
counsel, Shapiro & Morley, published notice of the public
sale of the subject property.
On March 6, 2014, a foreclosure sale was held. At the sale,
the high bidder made a bid of $160, 000 and signed a purchase
and sale agreement with Chase. Chase and the high bidder
extended the original closing date by agreement. On July 16,
2014, the closing occurred, and the high bidder paid the
$155, 000 balance for the purchase of the property. The sale
proceeds were deposited into Shapiro & Morley's
client trust account.
On July 31, 2014, Shapiro & Morley sent Chase a check for
$118, 178.49, representing Chase's portion of the sale
proceeds. Soon thereafter, Barron sought distribution of the
surplus to him. However, Shapiro & Morley, as is its
custom, does not disburse surplus funds to a third party,
such as Barron, until expiration of the statutory thirty-day
objection period after the filing of the report of sale
required by 14 M.R.S. § 6324 (2016). The purpose of the
delayed final distribution is to allow any interested party
an opportunity to object to the report of sale. When Shapiro
& Morley failed to comply with his demands, Barron sent a
notice of intent to file a claim for unfair trade practices.
Shapiro & Morley filed the report of sale on September 9,
2014. The report of sale stated that the surplus of $41,
820.94 would be disbursed to Barron upon the expiration of
the objection period following the filing of the report of
sale or upon a waiver of objection by Barron.
On October 9, 2014, the last day of the objection period,
Barron filed in the District Court foreclosure action a
motion objecting to the report of sale. The motion sought a
ninety-day discovery period to examine "inherently
untrustworthy claims" and unspecified errors in the
report of sale and sought an evidentiary hearing to challenge
the report of sale. The Superior Court's decision
indicates that Barron was claiming entitlement to
approximately $3, 000 in addition to the funds indicated as
due to him in the report of sale. There is no indication in
the record before the Superior Court ...