Corvallis Hospitality, LLC v. Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee for the Benefit of the Holders of LCCM 2017-LC26 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-LC26; Midland Loan Services, Inc.; Beacon Default Management, Inc.; and K-Star Asset Management, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied Corvallis Hospitality, LLC’s motion to strike evidence supporting defendants’ motion for relief and entry of judgment. The court held that loan transaction summaries, accounting exhibits, contract-based calculations, and attorney billing records were admissible under the business-records exception and could be presented in admissible form. The court also concluded that the challenged declaration statements recited contract terms and did not constitute impermissible legal conclusions.

Holdings

1. The loan exhibits were admissible business records because the special-servicing asset manager had sufficient knowledge of the lender's and servicer's record-keeping practices, relied on the records, and had a substantial interest in their accuracy.
2. The loan exhibits were admissible even though the summaries were submitted in litigation because they were generated from databases and underlying records maintained in the ordinary course of business and satisfied the requirements for summarizing business records.
3. The challenged statements were admissible because they recited loan-agreement provisions and compiled contractual terms informing calculations of amounts owed, rather than offering impermissible legal conclusions.
4. The billing exhibits were admissible because the declarations established that they accurately reflected contemporaneous time entries and the spreadsheets contained sufficiently detailed information regarding the billed work.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the loan transaction histories and accounting summaries submitted with the Furay Declaration had an adequate foundation for admission under the business-records exception to hearsay.
2. Whether the loan exhibits were inadmissible because they were prepared for litigation or constituted improper summaries of business records.
3. Whether statements in the Furay Declaration concerning the loan agreement and calculations of amounts owed were impermissible legal conclusions.
4. Whether the attorney billing spreadsheets submitted with the Ascher and Watnick Declarations had sufficient foundation for admission as business records.

Disposition

other