JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Terrance B. Lowell, 156 A.3d 727

JPMorgan filed for foreclosure in March 2015 against Terrance Lowell, alleging default on a promissory note secured by a mortgage and asserting assignment/ownership of the mortgage instruments.
At bench trial, JPMorgan called Frank Dean, a mortgage banking research officer, to lay foundation for business records (note, mortgage, assignments, payment history, and computer screen prints covering payments/charges through Feb 2016).
Dean testified about JPMorgan’s recordkeeping practices and his familiarity with how payments and loan data are entered, and JPMorgan introduced Exhibit E (computer printouts) showing no payments after Sept. 1, 2012 and a total past-due calculation.
The District Court admitted JPMorgan’s records under M.R. Evid. 803(6) and entered judgment of foreclosure finding Lowell owed $125,000.33 plus fees; Lowell appealed.
On appeal, Lowell challenged (1) admissibility of business records/Foundation of Dean’s testimony and (2) statutory adequacy of the notice of default and right to cure under 14 M.R.S. § 6111.
The Supreme Judicial Court upheld admission of the records but found the notice of default defective for failing to state a sum certain required to cure, vacated the foreclosure judgment, and remanded for entry of judgment for Lowell.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of business records under M.R. Evid. 803(6)	JPMorgan: Dean’s testimony about recordkeeping and his experience qualified him to lay the foundation for Exhibit E	Lowell: Dean lacked firsthand knowledge of specific transactions; thus records should be excluded	Court: Dean was a qualified witness and foundation was adequate; admission of Exhibit E was not erroneous
Proof of amount due	JPMorgan: Exhibit E plus Dean’s testimony proved amount owed	Lowell: Records (and foundation) unreliable; Wells Fargo records also required for earlier charges	Court: JPMorgan proved amount due from its records; challenge rejected
Statutory compliance of notice of default (14 M.R.S. § 6111)	JPMorgan: Notice itemized amounts and informed borrower of $27,879.86 past due or that $25,612.86 was required to cure (two inconsistent positions at trial/appeal)	Lowell: Notice failed to state the precise sum required to cure because it ambiguously defined "total monthly payments" and referenced un-itemized escrow/advances	Court: Notice failed to state a sum certain required to cure (ambiguity re: escrow and advances); strict compliance required => notice defective
Effect of defective notice	JPMorgan: Any defects were immaterial; foreclosure may proceed	Lowell: Defect is jurisdictional to statutory precondition and requires vacatur	Court: Defect required vacating judgment and remanding for entry of judgment for Lowell

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 96 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (§ 6111 requires notice to state the precise sum mortgagor has 35 days to pay; amounts may not accrue during cure period)
Am. Express Bank FSB v. Deering, 145 A.3d 551 (Me. 2016) (standard of review and foundation requirements for business records exception)
Ocean Communities Fed. Credit Union v. Roberge, 144 A.3d 1178 (Me. 2016) (business records are hearsay unless M.R. Evid. 803(6) foundation is met)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Burek, 81 A.3d 330 (Me. 2013) (reviewing proof of amount due in foreclosure actions)
Beneficial Maine Inc. v. Carter, 25 A.3d 96 (Me. 2011) (purpose of Rule 803(6) allows records to prove recorded facts without witness firsthand knowledge)
State v. Abdi, 112 A.3d 360 (Me. 2015) (witness need not have prepared the record to lay foundation for business records)