Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help
Chase Home Mortgage v. Hider

Back to Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT				Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	2000 ME 46
Docket: 	Cum-99-541
Submitted
on Briefs:	February 25, 2000
Decided:	March 13, 2000

Panel: 	WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and
CALKINS, JJ.

CHASE HOME MORTGAGE CORP. v. MARK SMITH HIDER

CALKINS, J.

	[¶1]  Mark Hider appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court
(Cumberland County, Mills, J.) dismissing his appeal from a foreclosure
judgment and dismissing his appeal from denials of post-judgment motions
in the District Court (Portland, Eggert, J.).  Hider contends that the
Superior Court erred when it dismissed his appeals for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  We affirm the dismissals.
	[¶2]  Following a trial, a judgment of foreclosure was granted in favor
of Chase Home Mortgage Corp. against Hider on July 16, 1998.  Hider filed a
notice of appeal which stated that he was appealing the judgment to the
Superior Court.  Hider subsequently filed, in the District Court, a motion for
relief from the foreclosure judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).  The
motion was denied, without hearing.  Hider then filed a motion for findings
of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52, which was denied. 
Hider noticed an appeal stating that he was appealing the denial of these
two motions to the Superior Court.  The Superior Court dismissed both the
appeal from the foreclosure judgment and the appeal from the post-
judgment motions on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 
Hider did not file an appeal to this Court until he filed a timely appeal from
the Superior Court's dismissal of his District Court appeals.
	[¶3]  Appeals from foreclosure judgments entered in the District Court
are to the Law Court, not the Superior Court.  See 14 M.R.S.A. § 1901(2)(A)
(Supp 1999).{1}  In Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Patten, 2000 ME 42, ¶ 14,
___ A.2d ___, we said that when a party appeals a judgment of foreclosure
and names the Superior Court in the notice of appeal, the appeal period is
not tolled.  A notice of appeal which expressly directs the appeal to the
wrong court is not an effective notice of appeal.  
	[¶4]  The statute directing the appeals to the Law Court, subsection
1901(2)(A), is broadly worded and plainly applies, not just to the foreclosure
judgment itself, but to any post-judgment order issued by the District Court
in the foreclosure action.  The Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to
decide appeals in foreclosure actions.  The court correctly dismissed
Hider's appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 
	The entry is:
			Judgment affirmed.

Attorney for plaintiff: David A. Dunlavey, Esq. Phillips, Olore, Dunlavey & York, P.A. P O Box 1087 Presque Isle, ME 04769 For defendant: Mark S. Hider 70 Cobb Avenue Portland, ME 04102
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} . The statute reads: 2. Exceptions. The following requirements apply to appeals from the District Court. A. A party must appeal from a District Court judgment in an action of foreclosure directly to the Supreme Judicial Court within 30 days of the judgment. 14 M.R.S.A. § 1901(2)(A) (Supp. 1999).