Maine Decision Presents New Challenges for Hearsay objections on Fabricated Records

see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Shone, 2020 Me. 122 (Me. 2020)

the record keeping shortcomings of some members of a particular business sector should not drive our interpretation of a rule of evidence that applies to the records of all businesses and, more broadly, as Rule 803(6)(B) indicates, to the records of any “organization, occupation, or calling.” If the records kept by mortgage lenders or loan servicers in particular are categorically unreliable, more stringent proof requirements might be appropriate. [e.s.] But there is no good reason to require in every case testimony based on personal knowledge of the practices of the business that created a record when the business that received the record can meet the integration, verification, and reliance criteria of the integrated records approach.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Shone, 2020 Me. 122, 17-18 (Me. 2020)

So the bottom line is that in the musical chairs game currently labeled as “servicing” it is common to have a company claim to be the servicer for an unidentified or unconfirmed creditor. That company in turn sends a witness to court who knows absolutely nothing about the case. But the witness is trained to say that the payment history report  tendered to the court as evidence constitute normal business records that have a presumption of credibility. Note that it is never said, asserted, alleged or sworn that the subject records establish the debt as an asset on the books of any creditor who paid value for the underlying obligation (see Article 9 §203 UCC).

This decision from Maine says that the records MIGT be admissible even if they include “integration” of data from a previous source. And foreclosure mill lawyers are going to be quick to point to this decision and to use it to steamroll over some hapless homeowner to get a foreclosure sale for profit instead of restitution for an unpaid debt that was liquidated contemporaneously with origination of the transaction.

But the court took special pains to point out that they suspected that some players were not as credible as others. The court pointed out specifically that so-called lenders and servicers might have record keeping shortcomings.  Indeed they do since they don’t actually create, maintain or report on data or transactions and instead merely maintain call centers at which people are hired to access screens that are managed by third party vendors working for the investment banks.

So this is the same as any other document that might make it into evidence. It is cloaked with a presumption but you can rebut that presumption by asking pointed questions and taking the deposition of witnesses who are said to have knowledge about transactions that nobody in their company actually handled or participated. You can do this administratively through a QWR or DVL or you could do it in discovery which is more easily enforceable. But answers to QWR and DVL often conflict with prior correspondence and notices, which is helpful.

REMEMBER THIS: THE BOARDING PROCESS DOES NOT GENERALLY EXIST. THE ASSERTION OF A BOARDING PROCESS IS MEANT TO INVOKE THE INTEGRATED RECORD-KEEPING EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE. IN OTHER WORDS WHILE THEY COULD NEVER HAVE SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE ORIGINAL RECORDS INTO EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF LACK OF COMPETENCE AND LACK OF FOUNDATION THEY CAN NOW OFFER INTO EVIDENCE THE RECORDS OF A NEW “SERVICER” WHO TESTIFIES THROUGH AN IGNORANT WITNESS THAT THE RECORDS WERE INTEGRATED FROM A PREVIOUS SOURCE, INSPECTED AND VERIFIED, AS WELL AS RELIED UPON BY THE CURRENT COMPANY IN ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS. 

Posted in Corruption, discovery, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, Servicer |