Bradbury v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

Citations: 780 F. Supp. 2d 118; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65338; 2011 WL 2441720Docket: 2:10-cv-458-DBH

Court: District Court, D. Maine; June 17, 2011; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States District Court for the District of Maine certified a question of state law to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court regarding the applicability of Maine's absolute judicial proceedings privilege to a statutory claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The case, initially filed in the Maine Superior Court, involved plaintiffs who are Maine homeowners facing foreclosure, asserting claims against GMAC Mortgage, LLC. The defendant removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction, and successfully moved to dismiss the common law claims for failure to state a claim. The remaining claim under the UTPA was challenged by GMAC Mortgage, which argued that the absolute judicial proceedings privilege should serve as an affirmative defense. The court noted the lack of clear precedent in Maine law on this issue. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that GMAC Mortgage employees filed false affidavits and certifications during the foreclosure process, specifically pointing out that employee Jeffrey Stephan signed documents without the requisite personal knowledge or verification of their accuracy and that notarizations were improperly executed.

GMAC Mortgage, LLC has faced sanctions in a different state court for its ongoing practices that have led to foreclosures, unfair attorney fees, and additional expenses for plaintiffs. The current lawsuit does not aim to vacate specific Maine foreclosure judgments but seeks damages and injunctive relief against the use of non-compliant affidavits and certifications in judicial foreclosure processes. Plaintiffs argue that GMAC's false documents constitute unfair trade practices under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), allowing for relief under 5 M.R.S.A. 213. GMAC seeks to dismiss the UTPA claim, asserting that its statements in the affidavits are absolutely privileged. While common law recognizes a judicial proceedings privilege, there is no precedent in Maine addressing its applicability to statutory claims like the UTPA, and other jurisdictions have conflicting rulings on whether this privilege extends to equitable relief. The court must determine if Maine's judicial proceedings privilege protects against claims under the UTPA related to affidavits filed in foreclosure cases, which will decide the outcome of the Motion to Dismiss Count 1.

Plaintiffs are to be treated as appellants before the Law Court as per Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(b). The Clerk is directed to certify twelve copies of this Order to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Additionally, the Clerk is authorized to provide copies of all filings and docket entries related to this case to the Law Court without charge, upon request from the Chief Justice or the Clerk. There is no certification regarding common law claims for abuse of process and fraud on the court, as the requirements for these claims are clear under Maine law. The plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their common law claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing. This case is distinguished from HSBC Mortg. Servs. Inc. v. Murphy, 2011 ME 59, 19 A.3d 815 (Me.2011).