182 A.3d 1241
Me.2018Background
- Jesse S. Eddins Jr. and Naomi L. Eddins (the Eddinses) were parties to a mortgage and promissory note ultimately serviced by Ocwen and held by Deutsche Bank as trustee.
- Deutsche Bank sued to foreclose after alleged payment defaults beginning April 1, 2014; the case was tried to the Superior Court after removal.
- Deutsche Bank's sole witness was Blaine Shadle, an Ocwen senior loan analyst who reviewed records in preparation for trial but had no personal knowledge of the law firm’s (Shechtman Halperin Savage) processes.
- Bank Exhibit E, a notice of default and right to cure printed on the law firm’s letterhead and stating it was sent by certified and regular mail, was offered as a business record; Shadle could not testify that the law firm mailed it or about the firm’s recordkeeping procedures.
- The court admitted Exhibit E over the Eddinses’ objection and entered judgment for Deutsche Bank; the Eddinses appealed.
- The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the foreclosure judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for the Eddinses because the Bank failed to prove mailing of the notice—its only evidence on that element was improperly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notice of default (Exhibit E) was admissible as a business record under M.R. Evid. 803(6) | Exhibit E is a business record; Shadle's testimony about Ocwen's records sufficed to admit the notice | Shadle lacked personal knowledge of the law firm’s processes for creating or mailing the notice; thus Exhibit E was not admissible | Court held admission was an abuse of discretion because Shadle had no foundational knowledge of the law firm’s recordkeeping or mailing practices; Exhibit E inadmissible and Bank failed to prove required notice, so judgment for Eddinses |
Key Cases Cited
- Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 122 A.3d 947 (Me. 2015) (standard for viewing judgment evidence and business-record foundational limits)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 96 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (mortgagee must prove proper notice of default/right to cure to obtain foreclosure)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Lowell, 156 A.3d 727 (Me. 2017) (foundational requirements for business-record admissibility under Rule 803(6))
- Beneficial Maine Inc. v. Carter, 25 A.3d 96 (Me. 2011) (witness must have knowledge of processes used by record creator when records are produced by a different entity)
- HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Murphy, 19 A.3d 815 (Me. 2011) (qualified witness must be intimately involved in the business’s regular operation to lay foundation)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chartier, 111 A.3d 39 (Me. 2015) (when mortgagee fails to prove an essential foreclosure element at trial, mortgagor is entitled to judgment)