KEVIN R. HALL
CAMDEN HILLS FARM BY THE SEA, LLC
Briefs June 14, 2017
C. Peterson, Esq., West Rockport, for appellant Camden Hills
Farm by the Sea, LLC
C. Thiem, Esq., Law Office of Susan C. Thiem, Lincolnville,
for appellee Kevin R. Hall
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
Camden Hills Farm by the Sea, LLC (Camden Hills), appeals
from a judgment of the District Court (Rockland, Worth,
J.) granting a summary judgment to Kevin R. Hall in his
foreclosure action pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §6321 (2016).
On appeal, Camden Hills contends that the District Court
should have dismissed Halls second foreclosure action as
barred by res judicata. Because Camden Hills disregarded the
explicit requirements of M.R. App. P. 8, addressing
organization and the order in which documents are to appear
in the appendix to the briefs, we do not reach the merits and
dismiss the appeal.
In April 2013, Kevin R. Hall filed an amended complaint for
foreclosure against Camden Hills on two sets of notes and
mortgages on residential property located in Camden. By a
judgment entered in May 2014, the Superior Court (Knox
County, Hjelm, J.) denied Halls claim for
foreclosure and entered judgment for Camden Hills, concluding
that Hall had failed to give Camden Hills sufficient notice
of right to cure. See 14 M.R.S. § 6111 (2016).
Hall appealed, and we affirmed the judgment. Hall v.
Ferrell, Mem-15-22 (Mar. 17, 2015).
On July 7, 2014, Hall filed a second complaint for
foreclosure against Camden Hills in the District Court
(Rockland). The complaint alleged that Camden
Hills was "presently in default on the notes, having
violated the due on sale or transfer clause of the notes and
having failed to make payment in full of all monies owed upon
the transfer of ownership." The complaint listed amounts
due on six terms of the notes and mortgages, including two
promissory notes, two sets of interest, legal fees and costs,
and property taxes. Camden Hills was served the summons
and complaint in August 2014.
Camden Hills filed an answer denying the substantive
allegations in the complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses, including res judicata.
The parties then engaged in some discovery and procedural
motion practice, and, in May 2015, Hall filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking a foreclosure judgment. See
M.R. Civ. P. 56(j). Camden Hills did not file a timely
opposition or objection to Halls motion for summary judgment.
See M.R. Civ. P. 7(c)(2), 56(c).
While the motion for summary judgment was pending, the trial
court ordered the parties to submit written arguments on the
applicability and impact, if any, of our opinion in U.S.
Bank, N.A. v. Tannenbaum, 2015 ME 141, 126 A.3d 734,
issued on November 5, 2015. Hall filed a written argument,
and Camden Hills filed a motion to dismiss. The motion to
dismiss alleged that the first foreclosure action was decided
by a final judgment involving the same parties and the same
cause of action and, therefore, the second foreclosure action
was barred by res judicata. Camden Hills attached the
judgment from the first foreclosure to its motion to dismiss,
but did not attach any of the orders that were incorporated
by reference into that judgment. Hall filed an objection to
the motion arguing that the motion was untimely and
misapplied the principles of Tannenbaum because
Halls complaint alleged new conduct.
On May 25, 2016, the court held a nontestimonial hearing on
Halls motion for summary judgment and Camden Hillss motion to
dismiss. During the hearing, Camden Hills acknowledged that
"if the Court decides that the res judicata analysis
isnt valid, then probably there are no factual issues, and
probably the summary judgment would come into play."
By judgment dated September 15, 2016, the court denied Camden
Hillss motion to dismiss and granted Halls motion for summary
Camden Hills filed this timely appeal. See 14 M.R.S.
§ 1901 (2016); M.R. App. P. 2(b)(3). On January 18,
2017, Hall filed a motion to dismiss in this Court arguing
that Camden Hillss appendix did not comply with M.R. App. P.
8 because it was not in the proper order and contained
documents that were not a part of the trial court record,
including two court orders from the first foreclosure action
dated April 2, 2013, and December 13, 2013. Hall also argued
that Camden Hillss brief contained numerous defects. On