Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 16, § 355 (2026)

Affidavit of plaintiff as prima facie evidence; exception

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In all actions brought on an itemized account annexed to the complaint, including an action brought in small claims court pursuant to Title 14, chapter 738, the affidavit of the plaintiff, made before a notary public using a seal, that the account on which the action is brought is a true statement of the indebtedness existing between the parties to the action with all proper credits given and that the prices or items charged therein are just and reasonable is prima facie evidence of the truth of the statement made in such affidavit and entitles the plaintiff to the judgment unless rebutted by competent and sufficient evidence. When the plaintiff is a corporation, the affidavit may be made by its president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer or other person authorized by the corporation. If the plaintiff is a debt buyer within the meaning of the Maine Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the affidavit must also conform to the requirements of Title 32, section 11019. [PL 2017, c. 216, §1 (AMD); PL 2017, c. 216, §11 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1977, c. 564, §81 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 696, §364 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 470, §A34 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 216, §1 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 216, §11 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roger Edwards, LLC. v. Fiddes & Son, Ltd., 245 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D. Me. 2003). “The defendant makes no attempt to comply with 16 M.R.S.A. § 355, which provides a particular procedure for recovering on an account annexed.”

Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Bickford, 166 A.3d 986 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “[¶ 4] Bickford objected to the admission of the affidavits in each claim on the basis that there was no witness to verify their relevance, accuracy, or credibility, and that they did not comply with the requirements for actions brought on itemized annexed accounts pursuant to 16…”

Brunswick Artesian Well Co. v. Hutchinson, 420 A.2d 1227 (Me. 1980). · cites it 4× “12(b)(6) and in admitting in evidence an affidavit purporting to establish a prima facie case under 16 M.R.S.A. § 355. We reverse the decision of the Superior Court and remand with direction to vacate the District Court judgment.”

Cent. Maine Restaurant Supply v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., 73 B.R. 1018 (D. Me. 1987). “1 CMRS seeks payment based upon two theories: payment on an account annexed, see 16 M.R.S.A. § 355 (1964); and payment for goods sold and delivered.”

Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Bickford, 166 A.3d 986 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “[¶ 4] Bickford objected to the admission of the affidavits in each claim on the basis that there was no witness to verify their relevance, accuracy, or credibility, and that they did not comply with the requirements for actions brought on itemized annexed accounts pursuant to 16…”

Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Bickford, 166 A.3d 986 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “[¶ 4] Bickford objected to the admission of the affidavits in each claim on the basis that there was no witness to verify their relevance, accuracy, or credibility, and that they did not comply with the requirements for actions brought on itemized annexed accounts pursuant to 16…”

Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Max A. Bickford, 2017 ME 140 (Me. 2017). “After review of the written submissions, in two decisions— without making factual findings or explicitly ruling on the admissibility of the evidence—the court found that 16 M.R.S. § 355 did not apply and concluded that PRA had met its burden of proof as to both claims.”

Curtin v. Morley (D. Me. 2021). “) (defining a small claim as involving damages of $6,000 or less and not including actions “involving the title to real estate”); 16 M.R.S.A. § 355 (Westlaw through 2021 2d Special Sess.”

Portfolio Recovery v. Markley (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “Plaintiff can comply with the requirements of 16 M.R.S. § 355 and seek judgment on that basis.”

Kelley & Leger Law Offices v. Perry (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “2 Pursuant to 16 M.R.S.A. §355, "[i]n all actions brought on an itemized account annexed to the complaint .”

Troubh Heisler LLC v. Walls (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “As Walls argues, under 16 M.RS. § 355 prima fade evidence of account annexed requires an affidavit establishing the account "is a true statement of the indebtedness existing between the parties" and "the prices or items charged therein are just and reasonable.”

Ebbert v. P & L Country Mkt., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “Plaintiff filed this motion along with the complaint in this matter, in which complaint he asserts four causes of action: 1) breach of contract for failure to pay amounts due on account (Count I); 2) action on account annexed, pursuant to 16 M.R.S. § 355 (2010) (Count II); 3)…”

Show all 17 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.