Preview:

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, SS. CIVIL ACTION .~&J~.T~o. ~~-12-?(J7
u  YJK-iL  '--1  f 2.  
LLP Mortgage, Ltd.,  )  
)  
Plaintiff  )  
v.  )  ORDER OF DISMISSAL  
)  WITHOUT PREJUDICE  
David N. Deering and  )  
Diane B. Deering,  )  
)  
Defendants.  )  

BACKGROUND
In 2004 Defendants executed a mortgage in favor of Ameriquest Mortgage Company on property at 3 Maddox Pond Road, Biddeford, Maine. In 2009 and 2010 the real estate tax on the property was raised substantially and Defendants began to seek a loan modification with Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. Plaintiff filed the complaint of Foreclosure on January 9, 2012. Plaintiff filed for and was granted a Motion for Enlargement of Time to allow for filing of the return of service of the service of process as late as May 29, 2012. Plaintiff filed the return of service on August 1, 2012.
DISCUSSION
Defendant moves the Court to dismiss this case because of Plaintiff's failure to timely accomplish service of process according to M.R.Civ. P. 3. According to Rule 3 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure,
"Except as otherwise provided in these rules, a civil action is commenced (1) by the service of a summons and complaint, or (2) by filing a complaint with the court .... When method (2) is used, the return of service shall be filed with the court within 90 days after filing the complaint. If the complaint or the return of service is not timely filed, the action may be dismissed on motion and notice, and in such case the court may, in its discretion, if it shall be of the opinion that the action was vexatiously commenced, tax a reasonable attorney fee as cost in favor of the defendant, to be recovered of the plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney." M.R.Civ.P. 3 (2012).
M.R.Civ.P. 3 was analyzed in a leading treatise:
"In order to ensure prompt service where the complaint has been filed, Rule 3 was amended in 1989 to require that the return of service be filed with the court within 90 days of the complaint's filing. The amendment followed the Law Court's decision in Dalot v. Smith, where the court affirmed the dismissal of a personal injury complaint where it took over a year from the complaint's filing (and over seven years from the accident date) to serve the defendant. The court went on to rule that excessive or unreasonable delay in service of process may be grounds for dismissal unless shown to be the result of mistake or excusable neglect. This was consistent with the court's broader ruling that proof of timely service was required to ensure that defendant has adequate notice and will not be prejudiced by having a stale claim." 2 Charles Harvey, Maine Civil Practice,

Download YORre-12-007.pdf

Maine Law