First Financial, Inc. v. Peter E. Morrison et al.

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of First Financial’s motion for relief from judgment in a foreclosure action. Although the clerk’s failure to timely notify First Financial of the entry of judgment warranted treating its motion as a request for an extension of the appeal period, the error was harmless because First Financial conceded that its notice of default and right to cure was defective. The court held that the Morrisons were entitled to judgment on the merits and that additional arguments not raised below were waived.

Holdings

1. Because the clerk's office failed to notify First Financial of the entry of judgment before the appeal period expired, the District Court should have treated First Financial's Rule 60 motion as a motion for an extension of time to appeal under M.R. App. P. 2B(d)(2) and allowed First Financial an opportunity to appeal from the underlying judgments.
2. The District Court's failure to extend the time for First Financial to appeal was harmless because First Financial conceded that its notice of the right to cure did not comply with 14 M.R.S. § 6111, and the Morrisons were therefore entitled to judgment on the merits.
3. First Financial waived arguments concerning the underlying judgments because it had notice of the Morrisons' motion for judgment on the pleadings and an opportunity to raise those arguments in the District Court but failed to do so.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court should have treated First Financial's Rule 60 motion as a motion under Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 2B(d)(2) for an extension of time to appeal because the clerk failed to provide timely notice of entry of judgment.
2. Whether the District Court's failure to extend the appeal period required reversal when First Financial admitted that its notice of default and right to cure did not comply with 14 M.R.S. § 6111.
3. Whether First Financial could raise on appeal arguments concerning the underlying judgments that it had not presented to the District Court.

Disposition

affirmed