What the Finch Decision Really Means for Maine Homeowners Facing Foreclosure

If you’ve been following Maine foreclosure law — or if you’re a homeowner trying to understand your options — you’ve probably heard about Finch v. U.S. Bank. The 2024 Maine Law Court decision made headlines because it overruled Pushard, a case that for years gave homeowners a powerful remedy when banks cut corners on foreclosure notices.

So what does Finch actually mean for you? The short answer: defective notices are still one of the most powerful tools in Maine foreclosure defense. Here’s what changed, what didn’t, and why it still matters enormously.

The Old Rule: Before Finch winning a foreclosure because of a bad notice meant the bank could not ever sue again.

To understand Finch, you need to understand what came before it.

Under the old Pushard rule, if a bank sent a defective § 6111 notice — the legally required notice that must be sent before a foreclosure can even be filed — and then went ahead and filed a foreclosure complaint anyway, the consequences were severe and permanent. The filing of the complaint was treated as an automatic acceleration of the loan. (Accelleration means the bank calls the whole amount of the loan due, not just the missed payments). If that acceleration happened on the back of a defective notice, it meant the bank had permanently lost its right to enforce the note and mortgage. The homeowner could end up owning the house free and clear.

For homeowners whose lenders had botched the notice process, Pushard was transformative. Banks that failed to comply strictly with 14 M.R.S. § 6111 — wrong amounts, missing itemization, defective mailing, missing counseling agency information — faced the possibility of losing everything.

What Finch Changed

In 2024, the Maine Law Court called Pushard “draconian” and overruled it.

The core holding of Finch: filing a foreclosure complaint does not automatically accelerate the loan if the § 6111 notice was defective. The bank can try again. It can send a corrected notice and re-file.

That’s a significant change. The “free house” outcome that Pushard made possible is gone.

What Finch Did NOT Change — Why This Still Matters

Here’s where many homeowners — and even some attorneys — get confused. Finch did not make defective notices harmless. Far from it.

A defective notice still defeats the foreclosure in front of the court. If the bank’s § 6111 notice was defective, the current foreclosure action fails. The bank can’t get a judgment. The case gets dismissed.

The bank loses everything it could have collected up to judgment. All the arrears, fees, interest, and costs that accrued during the time the defective case was pending — gone. In cases that have dragged on for years, this can represent tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes far more.

The court can still order the bank to pay your attorney’s fees. Defective notice cases allow for fee-shifting. If your attorney successfully challenges a defective notice and the case is dismissed, the bank may be on the hook for your legal costs.

The Moulton Decision: Finch’s Companion Case

Finch was decided alongside Moulton, another Law Court case that addressed related questions about defective notices and their consequences. Together, Finch and Moulton redrew the landscape of § 6111 litigation in Maine.

The practical takeaway from both decisions: Maine courts take notice defects seriously. The remedy is no longer automatic loss of the note and mortgage, but the consequences for banks that cut corners remain real and significant.

What This Means in Real Dollars

It’s easy to talk about legal principles in the abstract. Let’s talk about money.

When a foreclosure is dismissed because of a defective notice, the bank goes back to square one. In cases where the foreclosure process has been ongoing for two, three, or four years — which is not unusual in Maine — that means years of accrued arrears, fees, and interest that the bank cannot collect on in the dismissed case. Depending on the loan balance and how long the process has dragged on, that can easily reach six figures.

It also means that if you start making your regular payments after winning a foreclosure, you will be in good standing and the bank cannot try again.

If you go into default (miss payments), the bank can send a new notice and try again. But it starts the clock over. It has to comply strictly with § 6111 this time. And in the meantime, you have options — including the possibility of a loan modification, a negotiated resolution, or additional defenses in the new proceeding.

The Benoit Case: Putting Finch in Context

In one recent matter, we used the framework of defective notice law and related mortgage servicing defenses to achieve a result that wiped over $1 million off a client’s mortgage obligation. The specific facts of that case are unique, and past results don’t guarantee future outcomes. But it illustrates what aggressive, knowledgeable foreclosure defense can accomplish even after Finch.

The banks and servicers who think Finch means they can be sloppy about notices are wrong. Maine law still requires strict compliance with every element of § 6111. And when they fall short, there are real consequences.

What You Should Do If You’ve Received a Foreclosure Notice

If you’ve received a § 6111 notice — the letter that comes before a foreclosure is filed — the most important thing you can do is get it reviewed by an attorney immediately. The 35-day cure period runs fast. And if the notice is defective, the time to raise that is before or at the start of the foreclosure proceeding, not after.

At Island Justice, we have deep experience with Maine’s foreclosure notice requirements, the Finch and Moulton decisions, and the full range of defenses available to Maine homeowners. If you’re facing foreclosure — or if you’ve received a notice and aren’t sure what to do — contact us for a consultation.

Call (207) 200-7077 or contact us online.

Island Justice Law represents homeowners throughout Maine, from Fort Kent to Kittery.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.