Responds to the Law Court's Call for an Amicus Briefin Moulton Arguing for the Reversal of Deschaine and Pushard | Doonan, Graves & Longoria, LLC
- Reneau J. Longoria, Esq.
- Sep 29, 2022
- 1 min read
Updated: Nov 6, 2024
September 29, 2022
We think the time was right to respectfully advocate for a change in the law in the hopes of returning Maine to its roots in title theory. We filed our Amicus Brief with that in mind.
MAINE FORECLOSURES:Is it time for a return to pre-2014 jurisprudence?
“On August 23, 2022, [The Law Court] signaled it may be time to reconsider the breadth and depth of the Deschaine and Pushard Decisions and to provide clarity both on what this Court intended in those decisions, and whether Deschaine and its progeny were consistent with Maine law prior to 2017 when decided.” [AB 5]
“In short, a residential, judicial foreclosure in a title theory state is, by statute, an action in equity designed only to remove the equitable right of redemption and should never have preclusive effect on subsequent foreclosures.” [AB 15]
“Like this Court’s decision in The Bank of New York Mellon v. Shone, 2020 ME 122, 238 A.3d 671, this case presents an opportunity to resolve the conflict between the Deschaine and Pushard precedent and prior decisions grounded in Maine title theory, See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Gordon, 2020 ME 33, ¶¶ 15-30, 227A.3d 577 (Horton, J., concurring) (outlining the recent departure from precedent dating back to the nineteenth century).” [AB 7]
We will keep you informed of the decision. Please reach out to schedule in-person or virtual DGL Knowledge Exchanges to discuss strategies on your particular cases during these changing times.
Comments