### J-S71032-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 U.S. ROF III LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2015- 1, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SUSAN LAIRD & GENE STRIKWERDA, Appellants No. 1812 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Order April 22, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Civil Division at No. : 2014-29951 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J. * 

### MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 16, 2018 Appellants, Susan Laird and Gene Strikwerda, appeal, pro se, from the trial court’s April 22, 2016 order granting the motion for summary judgment of Appellee, U.S. ROF III, Legal Title Trust 2015-1, by U.S. Bank National Association as legal title trustee in this mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm.

_________________ ____________________ _______ * 

### Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

### J-S71032-17

- 2 -

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. 1 

### (See Trial Court Opinion, 4/07/17, at 1-5). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. On appeal, Appellants raise the following issue for our review: Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of [Appellee?] (Appellants’ Brief, at 6). We briefly note our standards of review. Our scope of review of an order granting summary judgment is plenary. We apply the same standard as the trial court, reviewing all the evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered. Motions for summary judgment necessarily and directly implicate the plaintiff’s proof of the elements of his cause of action. Thus, a record that supports summary judgment will either (1) show the material facts are undisputed or (2) contain insufficient evidence of facts to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense and, therefore, there is no issue to be submitted to the fact-finder. Upon appellate review, we are not bound by the trial court’s conclusions of law, but may reach our own conclusions. The appellate court may disturb the trial court’s order only upon an error of law or an abuse of discretion.

_________________ ____________________ _______ 1 

### On May 24, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellants to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On June 13, 2016, Appellants filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement. See id. On April 7, 2017, the court filed an opinion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

### J-S71032-17

- 3 -

Dibish v. Ameriprise Fi nancial, Inc., 134 A.3d 1079, 1084-85 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 141 A.3d 481 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted). Moreover, [t]he holder of a mortgage has the right, upon default, to bring a foreclosure action. The holder of a mortgage is entitled to summary judgment if the mortgagor admits that the mortgage is in default, the mortgagor has failed to pay on the obligation, and the recorded mortgage is in the specified amount. Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462, 464-65 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 112 A.3d 648 (Pa. 2015) (citations omitted). After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Appellants have raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. 2 

### (See Trial Ct. Op., at 7-12) (finding that: (1) Appellee is the real party in interest with standing to foreclose; (2) Appellants failed to rebut any of Appellee’s substantive allegations; (3) Appellants’ general denials did not identify any issues of factual dispute; and (4) Appellants’ claim that Appellee wrongly filed two

_________________ ____________________ _______ 2 

### To the extent it can be determined from Appellants’ brief, which is all but unintelligible, Appellants appear to argue that the affidavit filed by Appellee in support of its motion for summary judgment was inadmissible hearsay. (See Appellants’ Brief, at 7-8). The trial court did not address this issue in its opinion because Appellants did not raise it in their Rule 1925(b) statement. (See Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 6/13/16, at 1). Thus, Appellants waived this issue. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); see also Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 308 (Pa. 1998), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 431 (Pa. Super. 2009).

### J-S71032-17

- 4 -

different true and correct copies of the note was both waived and unsupported by record). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinion. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 2/16/18201 ticRALOIN94641P1r11123AP11

IN THE 

### COURT OF 

### COMMON PLEAS OF 

### MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION 

# - LAW U.S. ROF III 

### LEGAL TITLE 

### TRUST 2015-1 : BY U.S. BANK, 

### N.A., AS 

### LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE 

### Plaintiff v. 

### SUSAN LAIRD Aff(JA SUSAN L. 

### LAIRD AND STRIKWERDA Defendants 

### OPINION Branca, J. April 7, 2017
1. 

### INTRODUCTION Susan Laird afkla Susan L. Laird and Gene 

### Strikwerda (collectively, "Defendants") appeal pro set from this 

### Court's Order, dated April 22, 

### 2016, granting Plaintiff, U.S. ROF III Legal Title 

### Trust 2015-1, by U.S. 

### Bank National Association, as Legal Title 

### Trustee's Motion for Summary 

### Judgment and 

### entering

### judgment, in rem, in 

### favor 

### ofPlaintiff and against Defendants in the 

### amount 

### of$334,811.49, plus 

### interest and 

### applicable costs. For the reasons that follow, 

### Defendants' appeal is 

### without merit and the 

### Court's Order, dated April 22, 2016, should be 

### AFFIRMED. II. 

### STATEMENT OF 

### THE CASE The instant 

### dispute arises from a 

### Mortgage (the 

### "Mortgage") securing the real 

### property (the 

### "Property") located at 3126 Shirlene Road, East 

### Norriton, Pennsylvania, executed and delivered by 

### Defendants to 

### Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 

### ("MERS") as 

### nominee for Franklin American Mortgage Company 

### ("Franklin") on 

### January 23, 2009, and 

### NO. 14-29951 1812 

### EDA 2016

1111

# IIRritinilt 1111 2014-29951-0030 4/7/2017 4:07 PM # 11232729 Opinion Rcpt=23105573 Fee:SO.00 Mark LCN'y - NIontCo Prothonotary

While the Court is cognizant of Defendants' pro se status on appeal, Defendants are bound and obligated to comply with the relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. See Jones v. Rudenstein, 585 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (Citing Farretta v. _California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46 (1975)).2014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 2



### recorded on 

### February 9, 2009.2 The 

### Mortgage secured 

### Defendants' obligations under the 

### Promissory Note (the 

### "Note"),dated January 23, 2009, and given to 

### Franklin in 

### consideration 

### of

a loan to 

### Defendants in the 

### amount 

### of$260,855.00, with interest thereon at 

### 5.000%, payable in equal 

### monthly installments 

### of$1,400.33 commencing on 

### March 1, 2009.3 In 

### relevant portion, the 

### Note provides: 

### "Borrower" means each person signing at the end 

### ofthis 

### Note, and the 

### person's successors and 

### assigns. 

### "Lender" means Franklin America Mortgage Company and its 

### successors and assigns. 

### Borrower's promise to pay is 

### secured by a 

### Mortgage,

. . . that is dated the same date as 

### this Note and 

### called the 

### "Security Instrument." The 

### Security Instrument protects the 

### Lender from losses which might result 

### if Borrower defaults under this Note.

. .[4] In 

### relevant portion, the 

### Mortgage states: 

### Borrower owes Lender the 

### principal sum 

### of

. . 

### ($260,855.00.) This debt is 

### evidenced by 

### Borrower's note dated the same date as this 

### Security Instrument (Note)

. . 

### .. This 

### Security Instrument secures to Lender: (a) the 

### repayment 

### ofthe debt evidences by the Note, with interest,

. . ; (c) the 

### performance 

### ofBorrower's covenants and 

### agreements under this Security 

### Instrument and the Note. For this 

### purpose, Borrower does hereby mortgage, grant and 

### convey to MERS (solely as 

### nominee for 

### Lender and 

### Lender's successors and 

### assigns) and to the 

### successors and 

### assigns 

### ofMERS the 

### following described property 

# .... .[5] The 

### covenants and 

### agreements 

### ofthis 

### Security 

### Instrument shall bind and 

### benefit the 

### successors 

### andassigns ofLender and 

### Borrower

. .[6] 

### Thereafter, on 

### August 1, 

### 2011, Defendants defaulted on the 

### Note and 

### Mortgage by

### failing to make the 

### previously agreed upon 

### monthly payments. On 

### January 16, 2013, 

### though not 

### required

2 [Compl. at Ex. A (the "Mortgage") (Montgomery County Record ofDeeds, Instrument # 2009010231, Book 12533 at Page 368, (11/10/14)]. 3 [Compl. at Ex. B (the "Note"), (11/10/14)].
4 [Compl. at Ex. B (the "Note"), at ¶ 1, 3, (11/10/14)].
5 [Compl. at Ex. A (the "Mortgage") (Montgomery County Record of Deeds, Instrument # 2009010231, Book 12533 at Page 368, (11/10/14)]. 6 Compl. at Ex. A (the "Mortgage") (Montgomery County Record of Deeds, Instrument # 2009010231, Book 12533 at Page 368, at lj 12, (11/10/14)].
22014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 3

because 

### Defendants' period default exceeded 24 

### months, Plaintiff, nonetheless, sent 

### Notices 

### of Intention to 

### Foreclose to each 

### Defendant at the 

### Property via 

### certified and 

### regular mail.7 On 

### August 22, 

### 2012, the 

### Mortgage was 

### assigned by 

### MERS as 

### nominee for Franklin to Bank 

### ofAmerica, N.A., which assignment ("FirstAssignment") was duly 

### recorded in the 

### Office 

### ofthe 

### Recorder 

### ofDeeds 

### ofMontgomery County on 

### August 24, 2012.8 On April 2, 2014, Bank 

### ofAmerica, N.A. 

### assigned the 

### Mortgage to the 

### Secretary 

### ofHousing and Urban 

### Development, which 

### assignment ("Second Assignment") was duly 

### recorded in the 

### Office 

### ofthe 

### Recorder 

### of Deeds 

### of Montgomery County on May 29, 2014.9 On June 6, 

### 2014, the 

### Secretary 

### ofHousing and Urban 

### Development assigned the Mortgage to U.S. Bank 

### National Association, as 

### Trustee for 

### SROF-2013-S3 REMIC Trust I ("U.S. Bank"), which 

### assignment ("Third Assignment") was duly 

### recorded in the 

### Office 

### ofthe 

### Recorder 

### ofDeeds 

### ofMontgomery County on 

### June 18, 2014.10 On 

### November 10, 2014, U.S. Bank 

### instituted the 

### instant 

### mortgage foreclosure action against 

### Defendants. On 

### December15, 2014, 

### Defendants filed 

### Preliminary Objections pro se, 

### asserting that U.S. Bank was not the real party in 

### interest and 

### therefore, lacked standing to 

### foreclose. 

### (Defendants inexplicably attached to 

### their Preliminary Objections more than 250 pages 

### ofexhibits.) U.S. Bank filed its 

### Reply on 

### January 2, 

### 2015, and by 

### Order dated February 25, 2015, this 

### Court overruled 

### Defendants' Preliminary Objections. In the 

### meantime, on 

### January 13, 

### 2015, U.S. Bank 

### assigned the 

### Mortgage to SROF 2013-S3 REO I LLC, which 

### assignment

7 [Comp'. at 1112, Ex. C ("Notice of Intention"), (I 1/10/14)]; See 35 P.S. 5 P.S. § I680.402c. 8 [Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at Ex. C ("First Assignment") (Montgomery County Record of Deeds, Instrument #2012083941, Book 13388, at Page 01194), (2/26/16)]. 9 [Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at Ex. D ("Second Assignment") (Montgomery County Record of Deeds, Instrument N2014032724, Book 13786, at Page 00926), (2/26/16)]. 10 [Pl.'s Mot. for Summ: J. at Ex. E'("Third Assignment") (Montgomery County Record of Deeds, Instrument #2014037727, Book 13794, at Page 02303), (2/26/16)].

32014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 4


### ("Fourth Assignment") was duly 

### recorded in the 

### Office 

### ofthe 

### Recorder 

### ofDeeds 

### ofMontgomery County on 

### February 23, 2015.1 On 

### March 16, 

### 2015, 

### Defendants filed 

### theirAnswer and 

### New Matter, affirmatively admitting only 

### their names and 

### mailing addresses.I2 But 

### despite 

### Defendants' prevarication, they ultimately admitted all 

### remaining allegations 

### ofmaterial fact by 

### virtue 

### oftheir 

### lengthy and 

### obtuse general denials. On April 8, 

### 2015, in 

### response to 

### Defendants' alleged affirmative defenses, 

### Plaintiff filed a Reply aptly disposing 

### oftheir New Matter.I3 

### Thereafter, on 

### November 4, 2015, SROF 2013-S3 REO I LLC 

### assigned the 

### Mortgage to 

### Plaintiff, which assignment ("Fifth 

### Assignment") was duly 

### recorded in the 

### Office 

### ofthe 

### Recorder 

### ofDeeds 

### ofMontgomery County on 

### November 13, 2015.14 On 

### February 26, 

### 2016, 

### Plaintiff filed a 

### Motion for 

### Summary Judgment, asserting therein that it was the 

### holder 

### ofthe Note and Mortgage.I5 In 

### response, Defendants filed an 

### Answer, attaching more than 850 

### pages 

### ofexhibits, and 

### neglected entirely to file the 

### requisite 

### briefin 

### support thereof.16 

### After a 

### review 

### ofthe record, the 

### undersigned determined no 

### genuine issues 

### of material fact 

### existed, 

### Plaintiffwas 

### entitled to

### judgment as a 

### matter 

### of law, and 

### accordingly granted 

### Plaintiffs Motion for 

### Summary Judgment by 

### Order dated April 22, 2016. 

### Notwithstanding this 

### Court's April 22nd entry 

### of judgment and for 

### reasons still 

### unclear, on April 26, 2016, 

### Defendants filed 

### 'Preliminary Objections In The 

### Nature To 

### Strike 

### Plaintiffs Sur Reply

11 [Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at Ex. F ("Fourth Assignment") (Montgomery County Record ofDeeds, Instrument #2015011569, Book 13901, at Page 02967), (2/26/16)]; [Pl.'s Praecipe, at Ex, A ("Fourth Assignment") (Montgomery County Record ofDeeds, Instrument 420150 11569, Book 13901, at Page 02967), (4/8/15)].
12 [Defs.' Answ. & New Matter (3/16/15)]. 13 [Pl.'s Reply (4/8/15)]. 14 [Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at Ex. G ("Fifth Assignment") (Montgomery County Record ofDeeds, Instrument #2015086531, Book 14043, at Page 00199) (2/26/16)].
15 [Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., at ¶ 8, (2/26/16)]. 16 [Defs.' Answ. To Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., (3/28/16)]; see Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(d); see also Montco. R,C.P. 208.3(b) (generally permitting entry of judgment where respondent fails to respond). 42014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 5



### Brief

. . . .'17 On May 20, 

### 2016, Defendants timely filed and 

### served upon the 

### undersigned a 

### Notice 

### ofAppeal, and on June 13, 2016, Defendants timely filed 

### and served upon the 

### undersigned their Statement 

### ofErrors Complained 

### Of On 

### Appeal (Pa. R. A. P. 

### "1925(b) Statement") which set 

### forth the 

### following:
1. The 

### learned Judge erred in 

### granting 

### Plaintiff's motion for 

### summary 

### judgement. The 

### learned Judge erred in granting 

### Plaintiff's motion for 

### summary 

### judgement by 

### allowing 

### Plaintiffto file two 

### completely different true and 

### correct copies 

### ofthe note. 3. The 

### learned Judge erred in granting 

### Plaintiff's motion for 

### summary 

### judgement by not 

### dismissing 

### Plaintiff's case due to lack 

### ofstanding. 4. The 

### learned Judge erred in granting 

### Plaintiff's motion for 

### summary 

### judgement as the 

### court failed to 

### recognize MERS cannot transfer any 

### beneficial interest in the note or 

### mortgage. 

### III. DISCUSSION On appeal 

### Defendants preserved.two issues for 

### review. First, they 

### contend that 

### Plaintiff is not the real party in 

### interest and lacks 

### standing to 

### foreclose; and 

### second, they claim that 

### Plaintiffimproperly filed two 

### different copies 

### ofthe 

### Note. 

### Defendants' remaining bald and 

### undeveloped contentions that the 

### Court erred are 

### waived for 

### vagueness." As 

### discussed hereinafter, 

### Defendants' claims are 

### meritless, and the 

### Court's entry 

### of summary

### judgment in favor 

### ofPlaintiffwas appropriate.



### " Defendants' Preliminary Objections presentjust one example of Defendants' repeated misapplication and lack of Comprehension of the rules of civil procedure, as demonstrated herein: "The verification attached is signed by Leslie J. Rase Esquire. Leslie J. Rase Esquire is not a party to this case. Pa. R.C.P. 1024 requires that parties sign verifications. This verification violates the rules and therefore this document must be stricken.... This is not proper under civil procedure. Under old time practice this was called a Speaking Demurrer. Speaking Demurrers are not aloud [sic]." Additionally, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging that Plaintiff lacked standing, which was denied by operation of law. 18 See Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4).
52014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 6

A. 

### Standard of Review Summary

### judgment as a 

### matter 

### oflaw is 

### appropriate when 

### "there is no 

### genuine issue 

### of material fact as to a 

### necessary element 

### ofthe 

### cause 

### ofaction. Pa. R.C.P. 1035.2(1). The record is to be 

### viewed in the light most 

### favorable to the 

### nonmoving party, and all 

### doubts as to the 

### presence 

### of a 

### genuine issue 

### of material fact 

### must be 

### resolved against the 

### moving party. 

### Albright

v. 

### Abington Mem'l Hosp., 696 

### A.2d 1159, 1165 (Pa. 1997) 

### (citing 

### Pennsylvania State University

v. County 

### ofCentre, 615 A.2d 

### 303,304 (Pa. 1992)). 

### However, 

### "[w]here the 

### non-moving party bears the 

### burden 

### ofproof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his 

### pleadings or 

### answers in 

### order to 

### survive summary 

### judgment. Failure 

### of a 

### non-moving party to 

### adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on 

### which it bears the 

### burden 

### ofproofestablishes the 

### entitlement 

### ofthe 

### moving party to

### judgment as a 

### matter 

### of law." 

### JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. 

### Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1261-62 (Pa. Super. Ct. 

### 2013) (internal 

### quotation omitted). More specifically, to 

### preclude entry 

### ofjudgment, respondents must identify: (1) one or more issues 

### offact arising from 

### evidence in the 

### record 

### controverting the 

### evidence cited in 

### support 

### ofthe 

### motion or 

### from a 

### challenge to the 

### credibility of one or more 

### witnesses testifying in 

### support 

### ofthe 

### motion, or (2) 

### evidence in the 

### record establishing the facts 

### essential to the cause 

### ofaction or 

### defense which the 

### motion cites as not 

### having been produced.19 Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(a)(1),(2). In a 

### mortgage foreclosure action, 

### summary

### judgment is 

### appropriate 

### ifthe 

### mortgagors "admit that the 

### mortgage is in 

### default, that they 

### have failed to pay interest on the 

### obligation, and that the recorded 

### mortgage is in the 

### specified amount." Cunningham v. McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054, 1057 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) 

### (citing 

### Landau v. W. Pa. 

### Nat'l Bank, 282 A.2d 335, 340 (Pa. 1971)). 

### Finally, when reviewing a grant 

### ofsummaryjudgment, the 

### appellate court may only 

### disturb the 

### order 

### ofthe trial 

### court when it is 

### determined that there has

19 Pa, R.C.P. 1035,3.2014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 7

been an 

### error 

### of law or a 

### clear abuse 

### ofdiscretion. Shomo v. 

### Scribe, 686 A.2d 1292, 1294 (Pa. 1996); 

### Panichelli v. 

### Liberty Mutual 

### Insurance Group, 669 A.2d 930, 931 (Pa. 1996). B. 

### The 

### Court Properly Granted Plaintiff's Motion 

### for Summary Judgment. On 

### their face, 

### Defendants' pro se 

### pleadings reflect numerous procedural and substantive deficits. Their anfractuous responses and 

### allegations are 

### improperly predicated on a 

### variety 

### ofdocuments which are 

### either not part 

### ofthe 

### record, or 

### completely irrelevant to the 

### Court's disposition 

### ofthe 

### instant Motion for 

### Summary Judgment.2° For the 

### reasons that 

### follow, the 

### Court's entry 

### of judgment in 

### favor 

### of Plaintiffwas 

### appropriate.

i. 

### PlaintiffIs The 

### Real 

### Party In 

### Interest With 

### Standing To Foreclose.21 

### Given the 

### prolix nature 

### ofDefendants' responses and 

### allegations, including block 

### quotations from 

### various irrelevant publications, their defense 

### to.Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, while not 

### entirely clear, 

### appears from 

### their 1925(b) 

### Statement to be that: (1) 

### Plaintiff is not the real 

### party in 

### interest and lacks standing to 

### foreclose, and (2) a 

### genuine issue 

### ofmaterial fact 

### exists as to 

### Plaintiff's possession 

### of the Note.22 

### Defendants' claims are meritless. In its 

### Motion for 

### Summary Judgment, 

### Plaintiffproperly alleged it was 

### "the present holder 

### ofthe 

### Mortgage and 

### Note, as well as the 

### mortgagee 

### ofrecord."23 In 

### response, Defendants unconvincingly denied 

### Plaintiff's status as holder, stating, 

### "Denied. There is no 

### evidence that the

2° Defendants repeatedly refer to publications such as, 'Modern Money Mechanics,' as well as the 'Certificate of Incorporation ofMortgage Electronic Registrations System, Inc.,' as well as `MERS System ofRules of Membership,' Ginnie Mae Guaranteed REMIC Pass-Through Securities Base Offering Circular' MERS Residential Marketing Kit,' MERS Procedures Manual, Release 19.0,' and 'MERS Procedural Manual, Release 1.3.5, I .,20 21 Notwithstanding Defendants' failure to file a brief, this Court will address Defendants' I925(b) Statement. See Montco, R.C.P. 208.3(b)(6)(b) (Entry ofjudgment against respondent for noncompliance is appropriate.) 22 [See Defs.' Preliminary Objections (12/15/14)

, Defs.' Answ. & New Matter (3/16/16), Defs.' Answ. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., at ¶ 8, (3/28/16)]. 23 [Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., at ¶ 8, (2/26/16)].

72014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 8



### Plaintiffis the 

### holder 

### of the 

### Note or Mortgage."24 

### Contrary to 

### Defendants' assertion, the record aptly supports 

### Plaintiff's status as the real party in interest. More 

### specifically, not only did 

### Plaintiffpainstakingly set 

### forth the factual details 

### underpinning each Mortgage Assignment, but it 

### exceeded its 

### evidentiary burden by 

### attaching copies 

### ofeach 

### Assignment, statements 

### oftheir recordation, and a 

### documentary Affidavit in support 

### ofits 

### Motion, all 

### ofwhich supported its 

### standing to 

### foreclose, as well as the sums due thereunder.25 For their part, 

### however, Defendants baldly 

### asserted in 

### their 

### Answer to the Motion for 

### Summary Judgment that 

### Plaintiffcannot be the 

### holder 

### ofthe 

### Mortgage and the 

### Note, because the 

### Note was 

### specially endorsed by 

### Franklin to 

### Countrywide Bank, FSB.26 

### Defendants' response addressing the 

### Note's special 

### endorsement is 

### irrelevant to 

### Plaintiff's status as the 

### mortgagee and, in any event, not 

### supported by the case law. First, as 

### demonstrated by 

### Pennsylvania Rule 

### ofCivil 

### Procedure, the 

### mortgage holder is the party with 

### standing to 

### foreclose. See Pa. R.C.P. 1147(1) 

### (Requiring complainant to 

### allege "the parties to and the date 

### ofthe 

### mortgage, 

### and 

### ofany 

### assignments, and a 

### statement 

### ofthe place 

### ofrecord 

### of the 

### mortgage and 

### assignments.") That propositiOn is 

### supported by our 

### Pennsylvania

### jurisprudence, as 

### aptly demonstrated by our 

### Superior 

### Court's recent 

### decision in 

### CitiMortgage, Inc. v. 

### Barbezat, holding that a 

### mortgagee which avers and 

### produces evidence to 

### support its status as the 

### holder 

### ofthe 

### mortgage, by 

### assignment, is the real party in 

### interest." See 

### CitiMortgage, Inc. v. 

### Barbezat, 131 

### A.3d 65,68-69 (Pa. Super. Ct. 

### 2016); see 

### also Wells 

### Fargo

24 [Defs.' Answ. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., at 118, (3/28/16)]. Additionally, while Defendants did not assert with the requisite specificity any other issues on review, their repeated block recitation ofportions ofpublications which have no relevance to the instant dispute do not constitute sufficiency, so as to preserve theirdenials any ofPlaintiff's remaining allegations. See Pa. R.C.P. 1029. 25[See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ, J,, at Exs. A ("the Note"), Ex. B ("Mortgage,") Ex. C ("First Assignment"), Ex. D ("Second Assignment"), Ex. E ("Third Assignment"),Ex. F ("Fourth Assignment,") and Ex. G ("Fifth Assignment"), Ex, R ("Affidavit"), (2/26/16)1; See Kirby v. Kirby, 687 A.2d 385, 388 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) (Documentary affidavits, if uncontradicted, may properly support the entry of summaryjudgment as they fall outside the ambit of the Nanty-Glo Rule.) (internal citation omitted). 26 [Defs.' Answ. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J,, at 118, (3/28/16)].
82014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 9

Bank, N.A. v. Lupori, 8 

### A.3d 919, 922 n. 3 (Pa. Super. Ct. 

### 2010). It is well

### -settled that "[w]here

an 

### assignment is 

### effective, the 

### assignee stands in the shoes 

### ofthe 

### assignor and 

### assumes all 

### ofhis rights. See Smith v. 

### Cumberland Group, Ltd., 687 A.2d 1167, 1172 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). 

### Defendants, therefore, not only 

### misrepresented 

### Plaintiff's authority as the 

### mortgagee and the 

### evidence 

### ofrecord supporting 

### Plaintiff's status as the 

### holder 

### ofthe 

### Mortgage and Note, but they also failed to 

### muster any 

### evidence 

### oftheir own to 

### rebut 

### Plaintiff's allegations and/or evidence. As 

### delineated by Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(a), 

### Defendants were 

### obligated to set forth: (1) one or more issues 

### of fact arising from evidence in the 

### record controverting the 

### evidence cited in 

### support 

### ofthe 

### motion or 

### from a 

### challenge to the 

### credibility 

### ofone or 

### more witnesses testifying in 

### support 

### ofthe 

### motion, or (2) 

### evidence in the 

### record establishing the facts 

### essential to the cause 

### of action or 

### defense which the motion cites as not 

### having been produced.27
In 

### response to 

### Plaintiff's properly plead allegations and 

### supporting evidence, Defendants failed entirely to 

### present any 

### relevant evidence to 

### rebut 

### Plaintiff's claim as the real party in interest, and 

### holder 

### ofthe 

### Mortgage and 

### Note despite the 

### opportunity to 

### conduct discovery.28 

### Defendants' haphazard attachment 

### ofhundreds 

### ofpages 

### of extraneous exhibits, including publications and 

### documents lacking any 

### relevance to the 

### instant action, in no 

### way rebutted 

### Plaintiff's substantive evidence.29 As set forth above, to 

### preclude entry 

### of judgment a 

### respondent may not 

### rest upon mere general denials, but must identify an issue 

### of fact 

### arising from the 

### evidence. See Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3. Given 

### Defendants' failure to 

### meet their burden 

### ofrebuttal, the 

### Court's entry 

### ofjudgment in favor 

### ofPlaintiff, as 

### mortgagee, was 

### appropriate.
27 Pa. R.C.P. I 035.3(a). 28 Defendants failed to face their Answer to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment with the required cover sheet, pursuant to Montco. R.C.P. 205.2(b), wherein they could have expressly requested discovery, and did not otherwise seek discovery as to Plaintiff's status as the real party in interest. 29 [See Defs,' Preliminary Objections (12/15/14)

, Defs.' Answ. & New Matter (3/16/16), Defs.' Answ. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J,, at ¶ 8, (3/28/16)].2014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 10

This Court is not 

### unmindful 

### ofthe 

### mortgage 

### industries' propensity to 

### repeatedly re-assign mortgages. This 

### practice, though legal, can no 

### doubt be 

### confusing to pro se 

### mortgagees, such as 

### Defendants. Nonetheless, Plaintiff, in this case has 

### demonstrated its 

### burden under the Rules by 

### expressly pleading each 

### Mortgage assignment chronologically, and 

### attaching to its 

### pleadings the 

### referenced assignments; thereby setting forth in as 

### succinct and 

### orderly manner as 

### possible the basis for its 

### status as 

### assignee 

### ofthe 

### Mortgage. As such, the 

### uncontroverted evidence establishes that 

### Plaintiff, by virtue 

### of its 

### unrebutted chain 

### ofassignments, is the 

### mortgagee with standing to 

### foreclose, and 

### Defendants' claim to the 

### contrary is 

### meritless.
ii. 

### Alleged Two 

### Different Copies 

### ofNote.
On appeal, 

### Defendants also 

### asserted that the 

### Court erred 

### "by allowing 

### Plaintiffto file two 

### completely different true and 

### correct copies 

### ofthe note."30 The 

### Court is 

### perplexed by this 

### assertion. Not only is this 

### allegation unsupported by any 

### submissions 

### of Defendants on the 

### record, but this 

### Court's review revealed identical copies 

### ofthe 

### Note attached to 

### Plaintiff's Complaint and 

### Motion for 

### Summary Judgment. Indeed, the 

### copy 

### ofthe 

### Note attached to the 

### Motion for 

### Summary 

### Judgment includes the 

### exact same time- 

### stamp affixed to the 

### copy 

### ofthe 

### Note filed with the 

### Complaint; thereby confirming that 

### Plaintiff attached the same 

### Note copy to both pleadings.31 

### Moreover, in any event, 

### Plaintiff had no 

### obligation under the 

### Rules to 

### attach a 

### copy 

### ofthe 

### Note; especially in light 

### ofDefendants' apparent failure to 

### demand production 

### ofthe same. 

### Under Pa. R.C.P. 1147, a 

### complainant seeking to 

### foreclosure must set forth the 

### following averments 

### offact:

30 [See Defs.' 1925(b) Statement]. 31 [Compare Pl.'s Compl., at Ex. B ("the Note"), (11/10/14), with P1.'s Mot. for Summ. J,, at Ex. A ("the Note"), (2/26/16)].
102014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 11
(1) the 

### parties to and the date 

### ofthe 

### mortgage, and 

### ofany 

### assignments, and a 

### statement 

### ofthe 

### place 

### ofrecord 

### ofthe 

### mortgage and 

### assignments; (2) a 

### description 

### ofthe land 

### subject to the 

### mortgage; (3) the 

### names, 

### addresses and interest 

### ofthe 

### defendants in the 

### action and that the 

### present real 

### owner is 

### unknown 

### ifthe real 

### owner is 

### not made a party; (4) a 

### specific averment 

### ofdefault; (5) an 

### itemized statement 

### ofthe 

### amount due; and (6) a 

### demand for

### judgment for the 

### amount due.
Pa. R.C.P. 1147. As 

### demonstrated, nowhere in the Pa. R.C.P. 1147 is there a 

### requirement
to attach a copy 

### ofthe 

### Note upon which entry 

### ofj

### udgment is sought. Thus, in the first 

### instance, 

### Plaintiff's inclusion and 

### attachment 

### ofthe 

### Note copy was in 

### excess 

### ofthat which is 

### required by Pa. R.C.P. 1147. 

### Additionally, 

### Defendants' 1925(b) lacks 

### sufficient detail and 

### specificity to identify the filings 

### at issue, and as such, this 

### Court is unable to 

### ascertain to 

### which exhibits Defendants refer.32 

### Therefore, Defendants' claim 

### regarding 

### Plaintiff's filing 

### oftwo 

### different copies 

### ofthe 

### Note is not only 

### meritless, but is 

### also deemed waived in light 

### of defendants' failure to 

### provide the 

### Court with the 

### mandated specificity. Finally, as 

### addressed previously, the 

### instant Note has been in 

### arrears since 

### Defendants' default in 

### August 1, 2011. Despite 

### copious amounts 

### ofpaper added to this
case by 

### Defendants' futile and 

### frivolous attempts to delay the 

### disposition 

### ofthis matter, and 

### abuse our legal 

### system so as to 

### remain in the 

### Property for 

### years 

### without payment; the record reflects no 

### genuine issues 

### ofmaterial fact to 

### preclude entry 

### of judgment. Thus, in light 

### ofDefendants' failure to 

### demonstrate the 

### requisite issue 

### of material fact or 

### produce

32 See Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(11).2014-29951-0030 Opinion, Page 12

any 

### evidence 

### ofrecord to rebut 

### Plaintiff's status as a real party in 

### interest with standing to 

### foreclose, the 

### Court's entry 

### ofjudgment in 

### favor 

### ofPlaintiff and 

### against Defendants was 

### wholly appropriate. IV. 

### CONCLUSION This Court 

### respectfully requests that its Order, dated April 22, 2016, granting Plaintiff, U.S. ROF III Legal Title Trust 2015-1, by U.S. Bank 

### National Association, as Legal Title 

### Trustee's Motion for 

### Summary Judgment and 

### entering

### judgment, in rem, in 

### favor 

### ofPlaintiff and 

### against Defendants in the 

### amount 

### of$334,811.49, plus interest and 

### applicable costs, be 

### AFFIRMED. BY 

### THE COURT:

THOMAS C. 

### BRANCA,

Copies of the above Opinion mailed on 4/ -7 /17 to: By First Class Mail: Sarah McCaffery, Esquire Leslie J. Rase, Esquire Susan Laird, Pro Se, 3126 Shirlene Rd., East Norriton, PA. 19403 Susan L. Laird, Pro Se, 3126 Shirlene Rd., East Norriton, PA. 19403 Gene Strikwerda, Pro Se, 3126 Shirlene Rd., East Norriton, PA. 19403 By Interoffice Mail: Court Administr tion 

## L( Secretary 

### w'

12