Midland Funding LLC v. Mark Walton
2017 ME 24
| Me. | 2017Background
- Midland Funding sued Walton in Maine District Court for unpaid credit-card debt of $5,684.72, alleging Barclays had assigned the account to Midland.
- Walton moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the cardholder agreement limited dispute resolution to arbitration or small-claims court; the District Court initially granted then later reconsidered and denied the motion.
- At a bench trial Midland presented Cassandra Praught, a Midland Credit Management (MCM) employee and custodian of records, to authenticate a bill of sale/assignment and related electronic records showing the account was included in a sale from Barclays to Midland.
- Praught described MCM’s role as Midland’s affiliate debt servicer, the electronic transfer and storage of sale files, her training and access to the records, and that she compared the documents to the electronic sale file before trial.
- Walton admitted via Rule 36 admissions that he used the Barclays card, defaulted, and that the November 2009 statement showed a $5,684.72 balance, but denied the assignment to Midland.
- The court admitted the bill of sale under the business‑records exception and entered judgment for Midland; Walton appealed on jurisdiction and admissibility grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District Court was the proper forum under the card agreement | Walton: contract limits forum to arbitration or small‑claims court (equivalent to Delaware JP Court) | Midland: District Court is equivalent to Delaware Justice of the Peace Court and proper forum | Court: District Court is the equivalent; jurisdiction proper in District Court |
| Whether Praught was a qualified witness to admit bill of sale under business‑records exception | Walton: Praught lacked foundation/firsthand knowledge to authenticate a Barclays–Midland assignment | Midland: Praught, as MCM custodian with access and training, could lay foundation for integrated electronic records | Court: Praught was a qualified witness; admission under Rule 803(6) was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the bill of sale satisfied Rule 803(6) elements (made near time, regular practice, trustworthiness) | Walton: record lacked trustworthiness/foundational testimony | Midland: records were produced at sale, regularly kept, and trustworthy; Praught reviewed and verified them | Court: Each element met or reasonably inferred; record admissible |
| Whether admission of the bill of sale established Midland’s ownership of the debt | Walton: ownership not shown because assignment evidence unreliable | Midland: admitted bill of sale proves assignment | Court: Admission established Midland as sole owner; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Express Bank FSB v. Deering, 145 A.3d 551 (Me. 2016) (standard for reviewing business‑records foundation and admissibility)
- Beneficial Maine Inc. v. Carter, 25 A.3d 96 (Me. 2011) (employee of receiving business may qualify to authenticate records received from another entity)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 96 A.3d 700 (Me. 2014) (discussion of who qualifies as a custodian or qualified witness for business records)
- State v. Abdi, 112 A.3d 360 (Me. 2015) (foundational witness need not personally prepare the record to authenticate it)
- Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords, 967 A.2d 690 (Me. 2009) (de novo review of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Landmark Realty v. Leasure, 853 A.2d 749 (Me. 2004) (vacatur required if trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction)