206 A.3d 474
Pa.2019Background
- James and Beryl Wicker executed a mortgage in 2008; the loan later changed servicers and ownership, with Bank of America and then Bayview involved in assignments.
- Bank of America (later Bayview as successor plaintiff) sued to foreclose, alleging default and seeking amounts due; Bayview substituted in after assignment.
- At a non-jury trial Bayview called a single witness, Bayview litigation manager Terrance Schonleber, to authenticate business records including documents originating with prior servicer Bank of America.
- The Wickers objected that Schonleber lacked personal knowledge of records created by Bank of America and thus could not authenticate them under Pa.R.E. 602, Pa.R.E. 803(6), and 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108; they argued Bayview should have used a Bank of America witness or Rule 902(11) certification.
- Trial court admitted the records based on Schonleber’s testimony about Bayview’s boarding process, use of the same MSP platform, and reliance on incoming records; Superior Court affirmed; Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion given the particular facts and that Pennsylvania law permits case-by-case authentication without adopting a flat incorporation doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a records custodian of a successor servicer can authenticate records created by a prior servicer under Pa.R.E. 803(6)/§6108 | Wickers: Custodian must have personal/firsthand knowledge of the originating entity’s recordkeeping; cannot authenticate third-party entries; proponent bears burden to show trustworthiness | Bayview: Existing Pennsylvania precedent allows authentication by a qualified custodian when they can show how records were prepared, maintained, and relied upon; no need to adopt federal "incorporation" rule | Court: No bright-line bar; trial courts may admit such records case-by-case under Rule 803(6)/Act if custodian provides sufficient foundation and record appears trustworthy; affirmed admission here |
| Whether Rule 902(11) certification is required to authenticate predecessor records | Wickers: Proponent should use Rule 902(11) certification or prior servicer witness to ensure reliability | Bayview: Certification is an available alternative but not mandated by Rule 803(6); courts may rely on testimony foundation instead | Court: Certification is an alternative, not a requirement; Rule 803(6) may be satisfied by witness testimony demonstrating trustworthiness |
| Whether Superior Court precedent (Pautenis, CFS, Boyle) conflicts on this issue | Wickers: Cite Pautenis and CFS as supporting a stricter rule requiring knowledge of prior servicer processes | Bayview: Distinctions arise from facts; cases consistent in applying trustworthiness test | Held: No conflict—decisions are fact-specific applications of the same Indyk standard; no adoption of federal adopted-records doctrine |
| Whether trial court abused discretion admitting records here | Wickers: Admission was error because Schonleber lacked personal knowledge of Bank of America entries and burden was misallocated | Bayview: Schonleber testified about common platform, boarding/validation, and reliance; records had no obvious defects | Held: No abuse of discretion on these facts; records admitted and weight left to opponent |
Key Cases Cited
- Fauceglia v. Harry, 185 A.2d 598 (Pa. 1962) (historic discussion of business records exception and rationale for admitting regularly kept records)
- In re Indyk's Estate, 413 A.2d 371 (Pa. 1979) (standard that authenticating witness must provide enough about preparation/maintenance to justify presumption of trustworthiness)
- Boyle v. Steiman, 631 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Super. 1993) (applied Indyk standard to authentication where witness had secondary involvement in recordkeeping)
- Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. v. Smith, 15 A.3d 492 (Pa. Super. 2011) (refused to adopt federal incorporation rule where proponent failed to show trustworthiness of predecessor records)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386 (Pa. Super. 2015) (excluded predecessor records where trial court found facial discrepancies and witness lacked knowledge of prior processes)