192 A.3d 601
Me.2018Background
- In 2007 Plaisted executed a $478,500 promissory note and mortgage in favor of InterBay Funding; assignments purport to transfer the mortgage ultimately to M&T Bank.
- M&T Bank sued in May 2016 for foreclosure, alleging default beginning November 1, 2013; trial occurred in July 2017 in District Court (nonjury).
- The only witness was a Bayview Loan Servicing litigation manager who testified Bayview serviced the loan and M&T acted as a subservicer; he claimed familiarity with Bayview’s electronic servicing platform but not with M&T’s internal practices.
- M&T introduced Exhibit E: a 61‑page compilation of screenshots from servicing systems purporting to show payment history and amounts owed; no single ledger or clear accounting was presented.
- The litigation manager could not reconcile conflicting payoff figures in prior default notices, could not fully explain increases in the balance, and could not authenticate M&T’s practices or precisely account for payments and charges.
- The District Court entered judgment for M&T for $604,616.22; the Supreme Judicial Court vacated that judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Plaisted for failure to prove amount owed and inadequate foundation for business‑records evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M&T) | Defendant's Argument (Plaisted) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibit E (screenshots/servicing records) was admissible under the business‑records exception (M.R. Evid. 803(6)) | Bayview witness (as custodian) laid foundation; Bayview/M&T used integrated servicing platform; screenshots reflect records relied on in regular course | Witness lacked firsthand knowledge of M&T’s recordkeeping; could not show transmission, creation, or trustworthiness of integrated records | Admission was error: witness lacked sufficient knowledge of M&T’s practices to authenticate integrated records; foundation insufficient |
| Whether M&T proved the amount due on the note | Exhibit E and witness testimony established amounts owed; court could sum transactions from Exhibit E to reach proposed judgment | Records and testimony conflicted and were not presented as an organized ledger; M&T failed to carry burden to show itemized payment history and charges | Amount not proven: evidence was conflicting, disorganized, and the witness could not explain discrepancies; judgment vacated |
| Standard for admitting integrated/computerized loan records when multiple servicers are involved | (Implied) integrated screenshots suffice if the presenting witness is a qualified custodian | Require testimony showing producer’s and receiver’s regular practices and integration/trustworthiness | Court set guidance: witness must show both businesses’ regular practices, transmission, integration, and reliance; ideally present chronological, itemized payment history |
| Whether court should craft remedial guidance for future cases involving multiple servicers | Not directly argued but M&T implied existing practice is adequate | Plaisted urged strict foundation and clearer proof requirements | Court provided detailed best‑practice list (itemized payment history, dates, charges, servicer periods, witness/affidavit or Rule 902(11) certification) |
Key Cases Cited
- Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 122 A.3d 947 (Me. 2015) (discusses evidentiary problems created by securitization and multiple servicers and need for reliable foundations for foreclosure proofs)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 96 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (addresses sufficiency of evidence proving amounts due in foreclosure)
- KeyBank Nat’l Ass’n v. Estate of Quint, 176 A.3d 717 (Me. 2017) (qualified witness standard for admitting business records and when integrated records require knowledge of both businesses’ practices)
- Chase Home Fin. LLC v. Higgins, 985 A.2d 508 (Me. 2009) (amount due on the note is an essential element to support foreclosure judgment)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Eddins, 182 A.3d 1241 (Me. 2018) (standard for viewing trial‑court factual findings in plaintiff’s favor on appeal)
- LDC General Contracting v. LeBlanc, 907 A.2d 802 (Me. 2006) (business records altered or prepared for litigation may be inadmissible where modifications were not made in regular course of business)
- Adamatic v. Progressive Baking Co., 667 A.2d 871 (Me. 1995) (reliability concerns may justify exclusion of business records under trustworthiness prong)