Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Jones

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

May 30, 2019

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
JULIA L. JONES, Defendant, Appellant.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE, [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

          Thomas A. Cox for appellant.

          Matthew A. Fitzgerald, with whom Ashley P. Peterson was on brief, for appellee.

          Michael A.F. Johnson and Dirk C. Phillips on brief for Federal Housing Finance Agency, amicus curiae.

          Stuart Rossman, Geoff Walsh, J.L. Pottenger, Jr., and Jeffrey Gentes on brief for National Consumer Law Center and Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, amici curiae.

          Frank D'Alessandro and Jonathan E. Selkowitz on brief for Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc., amicus curiae.

          Before Lynch, Circuit Judge, Souter, Associate Justice, [*] and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

          SOUTER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

         In this diversity case, appellee U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., sued appellant Julia Jones for breach of contract and breach of promissory note, among other claims, after Jones stopped making payments due to U.S. Bank on her mortgage loan. At trial, U.S. Bank sought to establish the total amount owed on the loan account by introducing a computer printout, marked as Exhibit 8, that contained an account summary and a list of transactions related to the loan. The District Court admitted Exhibit 8 into evidence and relied on it in granting judgment to U.S. Bank in the amount of $226, 458.28. We affirm.

         I

         Jones argues on appeal that admitting Exhibit 8 violated the Federal Rules of Evidence. "We review the district court's interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence de novo, but its application of those Rules for abuse of discretion." Bradley v. Sugarbaker, 891 F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir. 2018). "[T]his court will not substitute its judgment" in a discretionary evidentiary ruling "for that of the district court unless left with a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment." Clukey v. Town of Camden, 894 F.3d 25, 34 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Paolino v. JF Realty, LLC, 830 F.3d 8, 13 (1st Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

         A

         Rule 803(6), known as the business records exception, authorizes the admission of certain documents under an exception to the usual prohibition against the admission of hearsay statements, that is, statements by an out-of-court declarant offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c), 802. Rule 803(6) provides that "[a] record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis" is "not excluded by the rule against hearsay" if:

"(A) the record was made at or near the time by-or from information transmitted by-someone ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.