Argued: February 14, 2018
Clifford H. Ruprecht, Esq. (orally), Roach, Hewitt, Ruprecht,
Sanchez & Bischoff, P.C., Portland, for appellant Kittery
Point Partners, LLC
W. Sparks, Esq. (orally), and Misha C. Pride, Esq., Drummond
& Drummond, LLP, Portland, for appellee Bayview Loan
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
Kittery Point Partners, LLC (KPP) appeals from a partial
summary judgment entered by the Superior Court (York County,
Douglas, J.) in favor of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
and M&T Mortgage Corporation. KPP challenges the
court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bayview and
M&T and alleges that disputed issues of material fact
remain. Because we conclude that the judgment that KPP
appeals from is not a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal
as interlocutory and do not reach the merits.
This case concerns a property located in Kittery Point within
the Town of Kittery. The individuals who previously owned the
property (the family) deeded title to it to KPP in 2005. KPP
executed a promissory note and mortgage for the property, and
those were assigned to Bayview in June of 2005.
In 2008, KPP stopped making loan payments and Bayview
instituted a foreclosure action in the Superior Court (York
County). In February of 2009, one of the family members,
acting on behalf of KPP, signed a delinquency repayment
agreement with Bayview. In the delinquency repayment
agreement, KPP released Bayview from "any and all
claims" associated with the note and mortgage. Bayview
voluntarily dismissed the foreclosure action pursuant to the
delinquency repayment agreement in April of 2010. M.R. Civ.
In August of 2011, KPP filed a complaint against Bayview,
M&T,  and a third defendant-a former member of
KPP-in the Superior Court (York County). The complaint sought
a declaratory judgment that the promissory note and the
mortgage securing it are invalid and also sought the recovery
of sums paid on the note. Although the third defendant
initially responded to the complaint, he has otherwise been
nonresponsive to the lawsuit.
An extremely lengthy discovery process ensued. In February of
2016, Bayview and M&T filed a motion for summary
judgment, which KPP opposed. After a hearing, the court
ordered entry of a partial summary judgment in favor of
Bayview and M&T on November 30, 2016. In its order the
This judgment is final as to claims between plaintiff KPP and
defendants/counterclaimants Bayview Loan Servicing and
M&T Mortgage Corporation. There is no just reason for
delay in entering final judgment as to those parties. To the
extent that any claims against [the third defendant] remain
unresolved, the adjudication of those issues are not
necessary to the resolution of claims between KPP and Bayview
and M&T and do not prevent the entry of final judgment.
timely appeals. 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2017); M.R. App.