in this action. After the entry of the stipulated judgment, Bay Bridge moved to vacate the judgment because the person who signed the stipulation on its behalf was not authorized to do so. The Superior Court denied the motion, and, on appeal, we vacated the judgment against Bay Bridge. See Hamill v. Bay Bridge Assocs., 1998 ME 181 P.2d 435, 437 (1978) (same). 4 . Defendants also suggest that a creditor may not simultaneously pursue alternate remedies to collect a debt. Defendants do not assert, however, that Hamill pursued conflicting remedies regarding the auctioned assets. Nor do defendants present any reasoned basis for vacating or otherwise amending the judgment on the basis of other collection efforts by Hamill. See Glamorgan Coal Corp. v. Bowen, 742 F.Supp. 308, 311 (W.D.Va.1990) (<HOLDING>); Bank One Akron, N.A. v. Nobil, 80 Ohio App.3d
holding that a secured judgment creditor may pursue simultaneous remedies to collect a debt as long as his pursuit does not constitute harassment holding that where a security agreement contained collateral other than collateral for which creditor advanced funds to debtor since it secured antecedent debts as well as new debt and the agreement provided that the security interest secured payment and performance of the debtors present and future debts to the creditor the creditor did not have a pmsi and the debtors could avoid the creditors lien on collateral claimed as exempt holding that because secured creditor did not attempt to collect its entire debt through the bankruptcy proceeding the liens in question were not property dealt with by the plan for  1141c purposes holding assignee could collect debt on stated account holding that article nine remedies remain available to secured party who becomes a judgment creditor