Attorneys for Plaintiff: Andrea Holbrook, Esq. Brett
Messinger, Esq. Duane Morris LLP
Allyson Knowles, Esq. Andrew Schaefer, Esq. Bendett &
Attorney for Defenant: John Campbell, Esq. Campbell &
Associates Pll - Ford Motor Credit Company - Pro Se, Pll -
Portfolio Recovery Associates - Pro Se
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
Bradford J. White has filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings in response to the renewed foreclosure complaint
filed against him by Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Trustee. Plaintiff opposes the Motion and Defendant has filed
a reply to Plaintiffs opposition.
court elects to decide Defendant's Motion without oral
argument. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(7).
of the background facts are pertinent to the pending Motion.
What is pertinent is that this is the second foreclosure
action commenced by Plaintiff against Defendant. The prior
action was filed in 2011 and went to a non-jury trial in
2013. See Wells Fargo Bank, as Trustee v. White, Me.
Super. Ct., Cum. Cty, Docket No. CUMSC-RE-11-77. In an order
dated March 21, 2014, the court entered a foreclosure
judgment in favor of Wells Fargo "based on indebtedness
of $110, 000, " less than Wells Fargo claimed to be due,
but more than Bradford White agreed was due. See
id., Order (Mar. 21, 2014). However, in September 2014,
after the Maine Law Court had issued its decision in Bank
of America v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89, 96 A.3d 700, the
Superior Court sua sponte vacated its March 2014
order and entered judgment for Bradford White "on the
ground that the notice of default and right to cure letter
sent to White on November 17, 2010 did not comply with 14
M.R.S. § 6111." Id., Order (Sept. 5,
2014). The second judgment does not state that whether is
entered with, or without, prejudice. Neither party appealed
from the second judgment, so it became the final judgment in
the prior action.
sole issue raised by Defendant White's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings is whether the September 2014
judgment in favor of Defendant operates to bar Plaintiffs
claim in this case. Defendant says the September 2014
judgment is res judicata as to Plaintiffs claim;
Plaintiff says it is not.
standard of review applicable to a motion for judgment on the
pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Maine Rules of Civil
Procedure is similar to that on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion-whether the pleading to which the motion is directed,
viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party,
states a valid claim. See Town of Eddington v. University
of Maine Foundation, 2007 ME 74, §5, 926 A.2d 183,
184; Heberv. Lucerne-in-Me. Vill. Corp., 2000 ME
137, ¶ 7, 755 A.2d 1064, 1066.
case, Defendant's Motion relies on matter outside the
pleadings, namely the September 2014 judgment in
Defendant's favor in the prior foreclosure action.
However, materials outside the pleadings can be considered,
and the court can take judicial notice of its own docket and
its prior orders. Cf. Moody v. State Liquor and Lottery
Commission, 2004 ME 20, ¶ 10, 843 A.2d 43, 48
("official public documents, documents that are central
to the plaintiffs claim, and documents referred to in the
complaint [can be considered without converting a motion to
dismiss into a motion for a summary judgment when the
authenticity of such documents is not challenged").
contends that the outcome of this case is dictated by the Law
Court's recent decision in Federal National Mortgage