Bradbury v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 58 A.3d 1054

District Court in Maine certified a state-law question to the Law Court under 4 M.R.S. § 57 and M.R.App. P. 25 about whether Maine's common-law judicial proceedings privilege is an available defense to UMTA claims arising from statements in affidavits/certifications filed in state foreclosure proceedings.
Certification noted that, if the privilege provides absolute immunity for UMTA remedies, the entire lawsuit would be dismissed.
Factual recitation in the certification indicated Stephan’s affidavits bore defective notarizations, falsely stating personal appearance and oath.
The privilege discussed is an immunity from suit protecting witnesses from vexatious actions for truthful testimony, but the court found Stephan’s notarized affidavits not to be testimony.
Maine law recognizes a similar absolute privilege for pleadings, but the defective affidavits do not qualify for protection under that privilege due to procedural rules (M.R. Civ. P. 56(e); M.R. Evid. 401, 402).
The Law Court declined to answer the certified question to avoid an anomaly where affirming would dismiss this case notwithstanding the facts, and negating it would foreclose a broad pronouncement not applicable to these facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Maine’s judicial proceedings privilege available to UMTA claims based on court-filings in foreclosure actions?	Stephan’s affidavits, though defective, should be protected as part of the judicial proceedings privilege.	Affidavits with false notarizations are not testimony and thus not privileged, and UMTA claims should be barred if privilege applies.	Privilege not applicable on these facts; affidavits with defective notarizations do not qualify as privileged testimony.
Do defective notarizations affect the privilege’s applicability to the underlying claims?	Notions of privilege should not be defeated by technical notarization defects.	Defective affidavits cannot be considered testimony and thus cannot be privileged.	Defective notarizations render the statements non-testimony, removing them from privilege protection.
Does the certification’s representation that dismissal would occur if answer is affirmative influence whether to answer the question?	Question should be answered to resolve the dispute.	The representation creates a jurisdictional and equitable concern that warrants declining to answer.	Court respectfully declines to answer the certified question.

Dineen v. Daughan, 381 A.2d 663 (Me. 1978) (judicial proceedings privilege protects testimony from baseless suits but must involve relevant statements)
Dineen v. Daughan, 381 A.2d 664 (Me. 1978) (privilege guards witnesses’ freedom to testify truthfully without fear of suit)
Vahlsing Christina Corp. v. Stanley, 487 A.2d 264 (Me. 1985) (privilege does not extend to statements unnecessarily published beyond privileged scope)
North River Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 2002 ME 146, 804 A.2d 399 (Me. 2002) (discussion of when to render advisory opinions given related factual issues)
Darney v. Dragon Prods. Co., 2010 ME 39, 994 A.2d 804 (Me. 2010) (criteria for deciding to answer certified questions} ,{)