Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 6204 (2026)

Redemption in one year

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 424, §3 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 134, §2 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 321, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 391, §4 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1967–2014 · leading case: Peoples Heritage Sav. Bank v. Pease, 2002 ME 82 (Me. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peoples Heritage Sav. Bank v. Pease, 2002 ME 82 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “Peoples contends that it refused to accept the Peases’ checks, returning them within ten days in compliance with 14 M.R.S.A. § 6204 (Supp.2001), and making clear that *1276 Davis lacked the authority to bind the bank to an agreement with them.”
Minnwest Bank Cent. v. Flagship Props. LLC, 689 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Both states describe the foreclosure decree as a judgment and, as part of a unitary statutory scheme, require that the contract rate run from the foreclosure decree up to the sale and thereon to post-sale redemption, if such occurs.”
Shapiro v. Haenn, 222 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D. Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “14 M.R.S.A. § 6204. 11 At the latest, Defen *48 dant CNB learned on June 21, 2000, that Plaintiff intended to contest the attorney-fees portion of the payoff.”
Gosselin v. Better Homes, Inc., 256 A.2d 629 (Me. 1969). · cites it 2× “Indeed, for the first time in the case, the motion for relief under Rule 52(b) revealed the correct date of first publication (the starting time of the statutory one-year period of foreclosure under 14 M.R.S.A. § 6204) to be December 20, 1966.”
Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. v. Spaulding, 930 A.2d 1025 (Me. 2007). “The defense of waiver of foreclosure pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 6204 (2006) is not raised by the Spauldings, but appears to be available because Wells Fargo accepted mortgage payments after the commencement of the first foreclosure action.”
Casco N. Bank, N.A. v. Edwards, 640 A.2d 213 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “14 M.R.S.A. § 6204 (1980) (emphasis added).”
Northup v. Poling, 2000 ME 199 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 6204 (1980 & Supp.1999). [¶ 5] In 1998, the trustees filed a complaint against Poling in the Hancock County Superior Court challenging the validity of the foreclosure and seeking to set it aside.”
Avco Delta Fin. Corp. of Maine v. Town of Whitefield, 295 A.2d 921 (Me. 1972). “2 and the “failure to redeem within one year” provisions of 14 M.R.S.A. § 6204. Were it correct that the first mortgage had thus been foreclosed with effective legal validity prior to May 18, 1970, this might have bearing upon the continuing viability of the requisite status of…”
Bancboston Real Est. Capital Corp. v. JBI Assocs. Ltd. P'ship (In re Jackson Brook Inst., Inc.), 226 B.R. 487 (Bankr. D. Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “12 The strongest argument made by Associates is that under 14 M.R.S.A. § 6204, BancBoston may have waived the foreclosure by accepting payment from Institute.”
Martin v. Piscataquis Sav. Bank, 325 A.2d 49 (Me. 1974). “Early in November 1971, within the one-year period allowed for redemption of mortgaged premises under 14 M.R.S.A. § 6204, plaintiff informed the Bank of his willingness and ability to redeem the mortgage.”
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Richardson (Me. Super. Ct 2014). · cites it 2× “321, § 1 (amending 14 M.R.S. § 6204); P.L. 2007 ch. 391, §§ 4, 9 (repealing 14 M.”
Allen v. Brouillard, 662 A.2d 229 (Me. 1995). · cites it 2× “The Brouillards filed a motion for a summary judgment, contending, inter alia, that the tender of $505,000 was insufficient because it did not include interest as required by 14 M.R.S.A. § 6204 (1994). The trial court held, inter alia, that because Allen’s tender did not include…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.