Bank of Maine v. Hatch
2012 ME 35
| Me. | 2012Background
- In 2005, Hatch signed a $189,000 adjustable-rate note to Gardiner Savings, later renamed Savings Bank of Maine and The Bank of Maine.
- Lewis alone signed the note, but both Lewis and Kathleen Hatch mortgaged undeveloped Newry land to secure it.
- Bank filed foreclosure complaint in 2010; moved for summary judgment in 2011, initially asserting both Hatchs signed the note but corrected course after error.
- Notice of default stated the amount due and that default was due to Lewis; it allowed cure within 30 days and referenced payment of taxes and escrow obligations.
- As of May 10, 2011, total due on the loan was $170,410.50, comprising principal, interest, and fees.
- Bank relied on an employee-affidavit to authenticate the business records under the Rule 803(6) business records exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit establishes admissibility of business records | Hatches challenge lack of proper foundation | Bank's affidavit shows custodial knowledge and daily handling | Affidavit sufficient to establish admissibility |
| Whether the bank complied with 803(6) foundations | Foundation details insufficient | Affiant had personal knowledge and control over records | Foundational elements met; admissible records |
| Whether the notice of default complied with mortgage terms | Notice lacked detailed information | Mortgage unambiguous; notice provided amount, cure, and deadline | Not required to include extra details; notice valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Beneficial Me. Inc. v. Carter, 25 A.3d 96 (Me. 2011) (foundational requirements for admissibility of business records)
- HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Murphy, 19 A.3d 815 (Me. 2011) (qualifications of a custodian or qualified witness)
- Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Hankins, 25 A.3d 960 (Me. 2011) (contract interpretation of unambiguous mortgage terms)