Background
Judith Moskal-Kanz owns a condominium unit in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, subject to the Tidewater Loft Condominium Association’s declaration, which requires owners to pay association fees and assessments. After she fell tens of thousands of dollars behind in dues, expenses, and legal fees, Tidewater mailed her a notice of right to cure in March 2022. When she did not cure the default, Tidewater filed a complaint for foreclosure and sale in April 2022.
Moskal-Kanz, appearing pro se, filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that her daughter—who lives in the unit and has a disability—needed accommodations related to snow removal and trash disposal, and that Tidewater had agreed to provide those accommodations in exchange for payment of fees but then breached that agreement. She asserted claims under both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. An earlier judge recognized the counterclaim as a live issue and listed it among the matters to be resolved at trial.
At the May 2025 bench trial, a different judge told Moskal-Kanz that her counterclaim was “not part of this trial” and limited the proceeding to foreclosure issues, blocking her attempts to cross-examine Tidewater’s witness on FHA and ADA matters. Despite having excluded the counterclaim from trial, the court subsequently entered judgment against Moskal-Kanz on that counterclaim, finding she had presented no persuasive evidence in its support, and also entered a foreclosure-and-sale judgment ordering her to pay $58,885.48 within ninety days.
The Court’s Holding
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the entire judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Reviewing procedural due process claims de novo, the court held that the trial court violated Moskal-Kanz’s right to procedural due process by refusing to let her introduce evidence or present witnesses on her counterclaim and then ruling against her on that very claim. Citing Jusseaume v. Ducatt, 2011 ME 43, the court reaffirmed that due process requires, at minimum, notice of the issues and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, introduce evidence, and present witnesses.
The court also vacated the foreclosure judgment itself. Drawing on Chase Home Finance LLC v. Higgins, 2008 ME 96, and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Spaulding, 2007 ME 116, the court concluded it could not say with certainty that the foreclosure was factually and legally independent from the unresolved counterclaim. Because the counterclaim and the foreclosure complaint may be inextricably intertwined, a final foreclosure judgment could not stand while the counterclaim remained unadjudicated.
On remand, the District Court must afford Moskal-Kanz a full and fair opportunity to present evidence on her FHA and ADA counterclaim before assessing what relief, if any, either party is entitled to receive. The court noted in a footnote that the attorney-fee award of $36,962.09 also appeared problematic because at least several thousand dollars in fees appeared to relate to a separate Maine Human Rights Commission proceeding rather than to this case, though it did not resolve that issue given the vacatur.
Key Takeaways
- A court that excludes a counterclaim from trial may not then enter judgment against the counterclaim plaintiff for failure of proof — doing so violates the due process guarantee of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- In Maine condominium foreclosure proceedings, FHA and ADA counterclaims arising from a unit owner’s disability-accommodation allegations can be sufficiently intertwined with the foreclosure complaint to preclude entry of a separate final foreclosure judgment while those claims remain unresolved.
- Pro se status does not diminish a litigant’s procedural due process rights; courts must ensure self-represented parties have a full and fair opportunity to present their claims even when those claims are difficult to parse.
- Attorney-fee awards in condominium foreclosure cases must be tied to fees actually incurred in the litigation at issue; fees from collateral administrative proceedings cannot simply be folded into the award without an independent basis.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that condominium associations cannot obtain a clean foreclosure judgment when a unit owner has raised plausible federal housing-discrimination counterclaims that have not yet been litigated. Trial courts must carefully track all live claims through to resolution before entering final judgments — and must not foreclose a party’s opportunity to be heard on a claim while simultaneously ruling against that party on it.
For practitioners representing either condominium associations or unit owners in Maine, the case underscores the importance of ensuring that disability-accommodation defenses and counterclaims under the FHA and ADA are preserved and explicitly addressed at trial. It also signals that fee awards bundled from related administrative proceedings may be vulnerable to challenge on remand.