Imagine that…a court putting JUSTICE ahead of policy & practice (of a court not normally [and sparingly and only in a clear instance of previous error] reopening issues of law already decided ) because they wanted to prevent a manifest injustice! Manifest injustice means something which is ‘obviously unfair’ or ‘shocking to the conscience.’ It refers to an unfairness that is direct, obvious, and observable: an outcome in a case that is plainly and obviously unjust.
And in THIS case, because I didn’t just “sit on my rights” but kept fighting and going on throughout the court system stating the same thing over & over again that the bank didn’t own my mortgage deed due to a MERS assignment that only gave the bank the right to record which did NOT give them ownership to provide standing to sue and because under Maine law in Saunders (decided 28 months BEFORE my case) this argument was correct at the time I argued it in court and this was overlooked by the Supreme Court (thus a clear previous error which is plainly and obviously unjust and unfair), they chose to reopen my case and correct their error and serve justice!
From the Order:
In 2007, MERS, as nominee for Countrywide, purported to assign the mortgage to an entity called U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for SAIL 2006-3. In 2009, that entity purported to assign the mortgage to the Bank. At some point, the Bank became the holder of the note. Reagan stopped making monthly mortgage payments in 2008.
Reagan filed a counterclaim alleging, among other things, that the Bank did not have standing to foreclose because MERS “had no rights to grant/convey [the] mortgage to the [Bank]” and “had no standing to grant/ convey anything of its own accord,” and that the Bank committed various forms of fraud by initiating the foreclosure action anyway.
The court (Fritzsche,].) held a trial in September of 2012, at which Reagan again argued that the Bank did not have standing to foreclose. On January 3, 2013, the court entered judgments in favor of the Bank on its foreclosure complaint and on Reagan’s counterclaim. The court then denied Reagan’s motion for reconsideration. Reagan appealed and, citing our decision in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Saunders, 2010 ME 79, 2 A.3d 289, argued that the Bank did not have standing to foreclose because MERS did not have authority to assign the mortgage. The Court affirmed the foreclosure judgment in a memorandum of decision issued on December 24, 2013, see U.S. Bank, Nat’/ Ass’n v. Reagan, Mem 13-139 (Dec. 24, 2013), and denied Reagan’s motion for reconsideration.
In February of 2014, Reagan filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maine against the Bank and other defendants, claiming “various constitutional and statutory violations in connection with [her] case.” After that court dismissed her complaint in October of 2014, she appealed from the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
In March of 2015, in the Maine District Court (Springvale), Reagan moved for relief from the foreclosure judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b )(5) and (6).2 She pointed out that the provisions concerning MERS in her mortgage are identical to those at issue in Saunders, in which the Court determined that “[t]he only rights conveyed to MERS … are bare legal title to the property for the sole purpose of recording the mortgage and the corresponding right to record the mortgage with the Registry of Deeds.” 2010 ME 79, iii! 9-10, 2 A.3d 289.
After the Superior Court denied Reagan’s motion, she initiated this appeal. Based on the unusual circumstances of this case, the Court ordered Reagan to file a motion for extraordinary relief…
The Court is convinced that the extraordinary circumstances of this case warrant extraordinary relief. Instead of “sitting on her rights,” Reagan pursued every possible avenue for relief. At virtually every stage of the proceedings, she argued that the Bank lacked standing to initiate the action because its ownership interest in the mortgage stemmed from an assignment by MERS that was ineffective to convey the ownership interest required for standing…
In this extraordinary case, the Court concludes that the administration of justice outweighs the important interest in finality of litigation. It is therefore ORDERED that Reagan’s motion for relief is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this Court’s memorandum of decision deciding Reagan’s first appeal, U.S. Bank, Nat’/ Ass’n v. Reagan, Mem 13-139 (Dec. 24, 2013), is withdrawn. It is further ORDERED that the January 3, 2013, foreclosure judgment in the Bank’s favor is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for entry of a dismissal of the Bank’s foreclosure action without prejudice.
See their [full] decision HERE!
Thanks go out to my lawyer (at the end of my trials of doing this as a pro se litigant, I hired a lawyer to do the final leg of this saga & enter the 60(b) motion) Matthew Williams and to my friends who stood by me & supported me and kept me basically sane and committed in staying the course and all the prayers sent out by many of you! I believe that God heard them and watched over the Maine Supreme Court Justices to do the right thing!
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF SAIL 2006-3 TRUST FUND v. DEBRA J. REAGAN