M & T Bank v. Plaisted, 192 A.3d 601

Background

Plaintiff M&T Bank sued to foreclose a commercial mortgage executed by Lawrence F. Plaisted (note $478,500) after alleged default beginning November 2013; assignments show InterBay → Bayview → M&T.
At bench trial the sole witness was a Bayview litigation manager who said Bayview and M&T both serviced the loan in a servicer/sub‑servicer relationship and that M&T used Bayview’s servicing platform.
M&T offered Exhibit E: a 61‑page, partially redacted compilation of screenshots from servicing systems purporting to show payment history and payoff figures; no single ledger or clear chronology was produced.
The witness could not explain large, unexplained payoff discrepancies between 2014 and 2015, could not account for many individual payments/charges, and disclaimed personal knowledge of M&T’s business practices.
The trial court admitted Exhibit E under the business‑records exception and entered a foreclosure judgment for $604,616.22; the Law Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for Plaisted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Exhibit E was admissible under M.R. Evid. 803(6) as integrated business records	Exhibit E is Bayview/M&T business records; Bayview witness qualified to authenticate; integrated platform means Bayview can vouch for entries	Witness lacked firsthand knowledge of M&T practices and could not show how M&T records were created/transmitted; foundation insufficient	Admission was erroneous: witness did not establish required foundation for integrated records; exhibits not properly authenticated
Whether M&T proved the amount due on the note	Exhibit E and witness testimony established totals and court could reconcile entries	Exhibit E was a disorganized compilation; witness could not explain discrepancies or provide itemized history	M&T failed to prove amount due; evidence inadequate to support judgment
Whether a witness employed by a servicer can authenticate records of a sub‑servicer/assignee	Bayview witness can authenticate where systems are integrated and he observed platform use	A non‑employee of M&T must show firsthand knowledge of both businesses’ regular practices to satisfy Rule 803(6)	A witness must demonstrate knowledge of both entities’ practices when records are integrated; that was not shown here
Whether redacted, compiled screenshots satisfy business‑records form and trustworthiness	Redactions and compiled screenshots still reflect underlying business records	Redactions were done for litigation and compilation lacked form of regularly maintained records; method raised trustworthiness concerns	Records redacted/compiled for litigation and lacking underlying unredacted originals can be inadmissible; trustworthiness concerns supported exclusion

Key Cases Cited

Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 122 A.3d 947 (Me. 2015) (discusses evidentiary problems from securitization and multiple servicers)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 96 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (amount due on note is essential element; evidence must be adequate)
KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n v. Estate of Quint, 176 A.3d 717 (Me. 2017) (standard for foundation and qualified witness for business records)
Ocean Communities Fed. Credit Union v. Roberge, 144 A.3d 1178 (Me. 2016) (business records are hearsay unless Rule 803(6) foundation established)
HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Murphy, 19 A.3d 815 (Me. 2011) (qualified witness need not be employee of record producer but must show firsthand knowledge)
Chase Home Fin. LLC v. Higgins, 985 A.2d 508 (Me. 2009) (party must prove amount due to support foreclosure judgment)
Avis Rent A Car System, LLC v. Burrill, 187 A.3d 583 (Me. 2018) (Rule 902(11) certification can substitute for live witness foundation)
LDC General Contracting v. LeBlanc, 907 A.2d 802 (Me. 2006) (post‑hoc alterations or litigation‑era highlighting/redaction can defeat business‑records admissibility)
Adamatic v. Progressive Baking Co., 667 A.2d 871 (Me. 1995) (trustworthiness factor under Rule 803(6)(E) can warrant exclusion)