Find Legal Information

Keybank v. Goodridge
Download as PDF
Back to Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT					Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	1999 ME 146
Docket:	Aro-99-108
Submitted
on Briefs:	September 15, 1999
Decided:	October 20, 1999

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

KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

v.

DONALD H. GOODRIDGE et al.

PER CURIAM

	[¶1]  Donald and Linda Goodridge appeal from a judgment entered in
the Superior Court (Aroostook County, Pierson, J.) granting Keybank
National Association's motion for leave to file a copy rather than the original
of a negotiable instrument pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 55(b)(3).{1}  The
Goodridges argue that Keybank failed to show cause for not filing the original
and that the trial court erred in granting the motion.  We affirm the
judgment and because we find the appeal to be without merit, frivolous and
instituted merely for delay, we impose sanctions of $500.
	[¶2]  In 1994, the Goodridges executed and delivered a promissory
note to Keybank for $126,894.42 secured by a mortgage on several
properties in Houlton.  After the Goodridges failed to pay the installments
on the note, Keybank sought a judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to
14 M.R.S.A. § 6322 (1980 & Supp. 1996).  The Goodridges filed a
counterclaim, contending that Keybank had violated the terms of the note. 
Keybank filed a motion for a summary judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56
and a motion for leave to file a copy of the negotiable instrument pursuant to
M.R. Civ. P 55(b)(3).  The trial court granted Keybank's motion for a
summary judgment and the Goodridges appealed.  We affirmed in a
memorandum of decision.  See Keybank Nat'l Assoc. v. Goodridge, No. 99-6
(Me. Jan. 13, 1999) (mem.).
	[¶3]  Simultaneously with its summary judgment, the trial court also
granted Keybank's motion for leave to file a copy of the negotiable
instrument.  Due to a clerical error, however, the order was not docketed
until February 8, 1999, after which the Goodridges filed this appeal.
	[¶4]  The Goodridges' appeal is frivolous for at least four reasons. 
First, the fact that a copy of the note was filed with the court and not the
original does not affect the underlying merits of the case, as the authenticity
of the note was not challenged by the Goodridges.  Second, whether an
original or a copy of the note is filed would not change the fact that we
affirmed the trial court's grant of a summary judgment for Keybank.  Third,
Keybank's motion pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 55(b)(3) was unnecessary because
Keybank was seeking a summary judgment not a default judgment.  Finally,
the trial court's finding that Keybank had cause for filing a copy rather than
the original was not clearly erroneous.
	[¶5]  Because the Goodridges' appeal is frivolous and instituted merely
for the purpose of delay, we impose sanctions in the amount of $500 to be
paid by the Goodridges to Keybank pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 76(f).
	The entry is:
Judgment affirmed with sanctions against the
appellants in the amount of $500.

Attorney for plaintiff:

Michael S. Haenn, Esq.
P O Box 915
Bangor, ME 04402-0915

For defendants:

Donald L. Goodridge
Linda L. Goodridge
35 Military Street
Houlton, ME 04730