### J-A32004-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOC., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST SERIES 2007-ARI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee
v. PAT CARNEY Appellant No. 125 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order December 13, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): No. 10-5124 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and FITZGERALD, J. * 

### JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 19, 2015 Pat Carney appeals pro se from the order denying his Petition to Set Aside the Sheriff Sale of his foreclosed property. We affirm. Appellee, HSBC Bank USA, filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure on April 27, 2010. Carney does not deny that he is the borrower of the refinancing funds underlying the mortgage. On July 2, 2010, the trial court entered default judgment against Carney due to his failure to file an answer to the complaint. On October 17, 2012, over two years following entry of default judgment and three months after the sheriff sale of the subject

____________________________________________
* 

### Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

### J-A32004-14

- 2 -

property, Carney filed a Motion to Open/Strike Judgment. On March 7, 2013, Carney filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and to Void Sale. The trial court denied Carney’s motions on April 12, 2013. On September 30, 2013, Carney filed a Petition to Set Aside Sale Based on Fraud and Lack of Authority, which is the subject of the instant appeal. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, the trial court found, inter alia, that Carney’s Petition to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale was filed nine months after the Sheriff’s conveyance of the deed to HSBC Bank USA, such that any alleged defects or irregularities in the proceedings were foreclosed pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 3132. The trial court additionally determined that Carney’s allegations of fraud and lack of authority were unsupported by any evidence of record and that Carney largely sought to relitigate claims previously deemed waived or otherwise disposed of by the court when it dismissed his Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Motion to Open/Strike Judgment. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed Carney’s petition. In this timely pro se appeal, Carney argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition to set aside sheriff’s sale on the grounds of fraud and lack of authority. Having determined that the Honorable Charles B. Burr, II’s March 4, 2014 opinion ably and comprehensively disposes of Carney’s issues on appeal, with appropriate reference to the record and without legal error, we will affirm on the basis of that opinion. Order affirmed.

### J-A32004-14

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/19/2015Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM



### IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 10-05124 HSBC BANKUSA, NATIONAL ASSOC. AS TRUSTEE FORTHE HOLDERS OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST SERIES 2007-ARI Petition to SctAside SheriffSale



## v. PATRICK CARNEY MICHAEL D, LiPUMA, ESQUIRE, Attorneyfor the Plaintiff. 

### Pro Se, Patrick Carney, for the Defendant. 

## OPINION BURR, 

### SJ. FILED: March4,2014 The Defendant, Patrick Carney, has appealed from this Court's denial ofhis Petition to Set Aside the Sheriff Sale of his foreclosed property to the Plaintiff, HSBC Banle, USA, alleging grounds offraud and Plaintiffs lack ofauthority to make the sale. The Defendant does not deny that he is the borrower ofthe refinancing funds underlying the mortgage securing the subject Note, but asserted that the actual lender was not properly before the Court and that the Plaintiffhad not established that it was a real party in interest with the authority to collect from himthe balance due and owing onthis obligation by sellingthe foreclosed uponproperty. The Plaintiff filed its Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure on April 27, 2010. A defaultjudgment was entered against the Defendant on July 2, 2010 due to his failure to file an Answer to the Complaint. The Defendant, on October 17, 2012, 01' over two years following entry ofthe defaultjudgment and three months after the Sheriff Sale ofhis pl'operty situate at 308 White Avenue, Linwood, PA, Delawal'e County, PA Recorder of Deeds Folio #08-00-Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

01217-00, to the Plaintiff on July 20, 2012, I filed a Motion to Open/Strike Judgment and, on March 7, 2013, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and his first plea to Void the Sheriff Sale three months after conveyance ofthe Deed to the Plaintiff. These latter two Motions were denied on their merits by an Order issued on April 11,2013 bythe Honorable G. Michael Green of this Court, with the Defendant subsequently withdrawing appeals therefrom to the PelIDsylvania Superior Court on May 31, 2013. The instant Petition, fully titled as a I'Petition to SetAside Sale Based on Fraud and LackofAuthority", was filed on September 30, 2013. The Defendant insisted at the Hearing held on this Petition on November 25, 2013 that he did not answer the Plaintiffs Complaint because he is a 

### ''pro se" litigant who could not afford an attorney and that he did not know that he was required to file a response to the Complaint. (N.T. 11-13). Defendant fmiher claimed that he believed that his interactions with the law firm representing the Plaintiff, including the submission ofa request to stay the Sheriff Sale based upon the grounds raised in this Petition, would be a suitable alternative to actually resolving the within matters in a court oflaw. (N.T. 8-11). The Defendant readily admits to waiving all of his defenses and claims in New Matter responsive to the allegations of the Complaint by failing to file Preliminary Objections or an Answer thereto contending fraud and the lack ofauthority to conduct a SheriffSale, as well as unilaterally and voluntarily bypassing and/or waiving all ofthe procedural requisites to which he had been subject, including the failure to pursue his appeals from substantive rulings against him on the foregoing issues. Nonetheless, Defendant believes and avers that he may, at any time, attack "fraud" on the part ofthe Plaintiff because, inhis opinion, "ifthereis fraud here", it must be contested in court. (N.T. 12).

The Deed for the Defendant's property was conveyed, on December 5, 2012, by the Sheriffto the Plaintiff and recorded on January 24, 2013, in the Delaware County Office ofthe Recorder ofDeeds in Book 5231, page 221. (Exhibit D to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant's Petition to Set Aside Sale Based on Fraud and Lack of Authority to Make Sale). 2Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

The Defendant vehemently insisted in that regard that, in his view, because the law provides no exception whatsoever to the necessity to adjudicate allegations offraud, he must be allowed to raise and to litigate the issue whenever he chooses to do so. 

### (Id., 

### passim). Throughout the Hearing on this Petition, the Court reminded the Defendant that, although Defendant has represented himselfpro se, he was required to learn and to follow the rules of court and to understand his legal status 

### vis a vis the failure to pursue an appeal from Judge Green's decision against him on the merits ofthe within issues, as well as to possess knowledge ofthe relevant and applicable law as a litigant before the court? (N.T. 11-13, 18, 47-50, 54-55). Nowhere was Defendant'slack ofpreparation and readiness to supporthis allegations beforethis Court more obvious than when he insisted that Judge Green's rulings against him on the merits of the issues submitted in his prior Petitions seeking to Open the Plaintiffs Judgment in Foreclosure, to Dismiss the Complaint and Void the SheriffSale concernedthemerits ofonlyhis VCC contentions because "the DCC" had been the primary subject ofdiscussion at the hearing held by Judge Green. (N.T. 32, 46-47, 58). 

### It, therefore, goes without saying that the unappealed from VCC contentions peppering the Defendant's current Concise Statement ofErrors Complained ofon Appeal have been previously litigated and decided against him, and thus waived. Stoeckinger v. Presidential Financial Corporation of Delaware Valley, 948 A.2d 828, 832, 208 Pa. Super. 95 (2008). Moreover, the Defendant haplessly claimed the excuse ofnot knowing he was "requested" to do

2 In an opinion filed in the case ofPolinsky v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 77 Pa. D. & C.4lh 95, 106-107 (Armstrong County, 2005), the Honorable Kenneth G. Valesek wrote the following admonition to chide the umepresented Plaintiffs for their numerous lapses in prosecuting their claim againstthe defendant in that case: "[T]he court must caution plaintiffs that[,] even though they are notrepresented by legal counsel, they are not entitled to a more lenient application ofthe Rules ofCourt simply because they chose to proceed pro se. "The right ofself-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity ofthe courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules ofprocedural and substantive law." Jones v. Rudenstein, 401 Pa. Super. 400, 404, 585 A.2d 520, 522 (1991)(quotingFarretta v. CaJifomia, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46, 95 S. Ct. 2525,2540 n.46 (1975)." [d. (footnote omitted). 3Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

so when explaining his failure to file a Memorandum ofLaw setting f01ih citation and discussion ofrelevant and appropriatelegal authorities inSUppOlt ofthe instant Petition. (N.T. 54-55). The Comt denied the Defendant's Petition to Set Aside [Sheriff] Sale Based on Fraud and Lack of Authority and this appeal followed. The Defendant has submitted the following Concise Statement ofErrors COlllplained ofonAppeal: 

### "

...[1.] The very foundation of the Plaintiffs [C]omplaint is based on a lie, a purposeful deceit that began at the fraudulent closing held on November 10, 2006. Defendant was fraudulently induced into signing an invalid contract. The purported lender stated in the Mortgage is identified as AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT (ABC). Itfurther states that the lender is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of [the] State ofNew York. This was an intentional perversion ofthe truth! There is no corporate entity known as "ABC". The Defendant has spent numerous hours searching the public records and has found no such corporate entity; quite simply, ABC did not exist as a corporate person. ABC was completely fictitious. A non-entity lacking legal capacity to enter into any legally binding contracts. [Sic]. Not only does ABC not exist in New York, 

### it also does not exist as a corporate entity in Pennsylvania either. Fmthermore, there is no entity by the name ofABC that is licensed as a lender to fund loans, neither by the [Pennsylvania] Banking Commission, nor in New York or in any other state in these United States ofAmerica. Defendant has provided this [C]ourt with its documentation, which stand as genuine issues of material fact and provide ample evidence that there is no legally binding contract that Plaintiff can establish standing before this [C]omi. Additionally, Defendanthas also provided the [C]OUli withthe actual funding records from the invalid closing that prove a completely foreign entity actually provided the source offunds. This foreign entity is completely undisclosed in any ofthe documentationpresented at closing and represents a clear violation ofRegulation Z - the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act which prohibit third party table funding. In summarizing this patiicular error ofthe [C]omi, we have a non-existent pretend lender, who has no legal capacity to act as a lender or legally enter into any contract whatsoever. In fact, ABC was not the lender, as it did not provide any funding whatsoever. Therefore, the very contract that the Plaintiff's case is based [upon] can be termed as legally invalid as the purported lender lacked legal capacity and provided no consideration, thus it fails at its origination and the chain oftitle emanating from this void contract is corrupted at its inception. Since the mortgage and note are invalid, the [C]ourt lacks thejurisdictionto adjudicate the case. [2.] The [C]ourt also lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiff has failed to provide an evidence that it suffered any loss whatsoever. It has also failed to provide valid evidence that it is a real patty in interest, as ithas not provided evidence that 

### it is a valid holder-in-due-course ofa valid note, in accordance with UCC rules as outlined in Defendant's pleadings. The Plaintiffhas not presented the original note as required by UCC rules and requested by Defendant. The [C]ourt has not enforced that requirement and it represents an enol' that must be conected. The burden ofproofis always on the Plaintiffand it has failed to produce the original note. FUlther, the Plaintiffattempted to 4Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

transfer an invalid mortgage into the Trust in 2010, when ithad already closedthree years earlier in a clear violation oftrust law. This was an attempted fraud designed to deceive the [C]oUli, the [S]heriffand the Defendant. The Plaintifffraudulently submitted to the Sheriff['s] [D]epmiment a forged and fa1ce Assignment ofMortgage that also clearly had the presence ofnotary fraud. This was the document that the Plaintiffheld out as 'the' evidence that it was the owner ofboth the mortgage and the note. A cursory review of the signature indicates that the fraud is self-evident. The signature is an admittedforgery. A senior patineI' in the law firm representing thePlaintiffadmitted in writing, that it was a forged document. This evidence was submitted to the [C]ourt and it was eIToneously ignored. The [C]ourt could also compare the signatures on the first and second assignment ofmortgage submitted by the Plaintiff; these two signatures are supposed to be executed by the same person and they clearly are not, representing a clear fraudulent intent. [3.] The second and third Assignments ofMortgage were also fraudulently recorded as they were not executed by parties with authorization. In fact, the recording ofa second Assignment was filed 

### after the defaultjudgment was already entered. This means that the Prothonotary acted without authority when itrecorded thejudgmentbased on the face of the public record at that time; meaning that the Plaintiff did not have possession or ownership ofthe mortgage or the note at the time thejudgmentwas entered as no assignment was ofrecord, rendering thejudgment void and an eITor that must be corrected by the [C]olUi. [4.] The verification filed with the Plaintif-fs [C]omplaint is defective and it is executed by a known**robo~signer** who is not a patty to this case in violation of Pennsylvania statute [sic]. Since the verification is defective, the [C]omplaint is also defective as it is merely an unverified and unsubstantiated allegation. These defects represent errors missed or otherwise overlooked bythe [C]ourt and mustbe corrected. [5.] Plaintiff also violated [Pennsylvania] recording statutes where all assignments must be recorded in the [Delaware] [C]ounty [R]ecorder of[D]eeds [O]ffice. In order for this Plaintiff to have valid, legal standing, it is required to record all assignments ofthe mortgage in question. The Plaintiffis a Trustee to a securitized Trust. In order for this Trust to have legal ownership ofthe mortgage, in accordance with its own founding trust document, mortgages are required to travel through a series of intermediaries. Specifically, there must be at least three separate assignments, from the Originator, to the Sponsor, to the Depositor, to the Trust. Each ofthese assignments must be transferred in succession in order for the trust to validly own the Note. Each ofthose assignments [is] required by [Pennsylvania] recording statutes to be recorded. None of these required recordings [is] on the public record, which is in a [sic] clear violation of [Pennsylvania] law. This represents an error ofthe [C]ourtthat mustbe cOl1'ected. [6.] Plaintiff's counsel ignored Defendant's pleadings to postpone the [S]heriff sale. Due to the seriousness of the Defendant's charges, Plaintiff's counsel [breached] its code of ethics as it had an ethical obligation as officers ofthe court to postpone the [S]heriff sale and allow the [C]ourt adequate time to hold a hearing to adjudicate the charges. Instead, Plaintiffand its counsel plowed ahead to the sale in order to quickly steal Defendant['s] property prior to any cOUli hearing, representing an unjust 5Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

enrichment. Plaintiff also failed to provide adequate notice ofthe sale as required by [pelIDsylvania] statute; these oversights represent an error that is correctable by the [C]ourt. [7.] Wherefore[,] having presented genuine issues ofmaterial fact that the Plaintiff not only committed numerous violations of the Pemlsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, it also committed fraud by drafting, executing, submitting and filing forged and defective documents. The Plaintiffhas not presented any credible evidence that it is the one and only person with the right to enforce the Note in accordance with the UCC. The Defendant[,] therefore[,] respectfully requests that the sale of 308 White Avenue, Linwood, Pa[.] 19061 be set aside and title to the property retm11ed to [Defendant]. Further, the Defendant requests that the [C]ourt will impose other such terms and conditions of relief as it may deem appropriate such as dismissing the [C]omplaint." (Defendant's Concise Statement ofErrors Complained ofon Appeal, pps. 2-5).(Emphasis in original). The Defendant's issues on appeal are discussedl.mderthe appropriate heading below.

TheDefendant's Claims are Either Waived and/or are Non-Cognizable The decision to set aside a Sheriffs Sale is within the sound discretion ofthe trial Court whose decision should not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse ofdiscretion. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital v. Steele, 859 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super., 2004), app. den., 582 Pa. 718, 872 A.2d 1199 (2005). The burden ofproofin a Petition to Set Aside a Sheriffs Sale rests upon the proponent ofthe Petitionto show, by clear and convincing evidence, that settling aside the sale is warranted. M & T Mortgage Corporation v. Keesler, 826 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 2003), app. den., 579 Pa. 693; 856 A.2d 835 (2004) In the instant case, the record establishes that the Defendant never responded to Plaintiffs Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure contending default in repayment ofthe subject Note, and that the resulting default judgment in the Plaintiffs favor foreclosed Defendant's pursuit ofany and all defenses that could have beenraised in oppositionto the Plaintiff's attempt to collect the balance Defendant admittedly owes. The Defendant, at no time, sought
6Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

postponement of the Sheriff Sale of the foreclosed upon property on any ground, including failure to assure proper notice of the intent for the sale to take place.3 The Defendant, on October 17, 2012, or over two years following entIy ofthe defaultjudgment and three months after the Sheriff Sale of his property situate at 308 White Avenue, Linwood, PA, Delaware County, PA Recorder ofDeeds Folio #08-00-01217-00, to the Plaintiffon July 20, 2012, first sought to wage his defenses to the Complaint and the within claims ofdefects in the record in a Motionto Open/Strike Judgmentin Foreclosure. 

### It was not until March 7, 2013, that the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and to Void the Sheriff Sale, also alleging the contentions presented instantly here below. Again, both ofthe foregoing Motions were denied by the Honorable G. Michael Green ofthis Court and appeals therefrom were withdrawn by the Defendant on May 31, 2013, thus leaving Judge Green's rulings unchallenged. The Defendant has presented neither any allegation, nor ground for overturning the rulings of a prior court against him whatsoever, and this Court will neitherrevisit, nor ovenule, Judge Green's holdings againstthe Defendant. There has been no mention, nor showing from the Defendant, as to why 

### itwould have been appropriate for this Court to impinge upon Judge Green's prior jurisdiction over this litigation. The coordinatejurisdiction rule holds that, upon transfer ofa matter between trialjudges ofthe same Bench, the transferee jurist may not alter the former judge's resolution of a legal issue, or overrule his or her decisions. Zane v. Friends Hospital, 575 Pa. 236, 243, 836 A.2d 25,29 (2003) citing to Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564,664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1995). The exceptions to

In Paragraph 6 ofhis Concise Statement, Defendant submitted, for the first time, a boilerplate contention that the Plaintiffhad failed to give propel' notice ofthe SheriffSale. (ld.). Nevertheless, the giving ofnotice thereofare thejoint duty and responsibility ofthe Plaintiffand the Sheriff, and, in the absence of any allegations offact and supporting legal authority for the averment, this issue must be deemed waived. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3129.1 and 3129.2; Delaware County, PA, Local Rule of Civil Procedure *3129(b); Frank v. Peckich, 257 Pa. Super. 561, 391 A.2d 624 1978)(boilerplate language setting forth an issue is disapproved; coulimust know what it is being asked to decide). Moreover, issues not raised before the lower court are waived and cannotbe raised for the first time on appeal. PennsylvaniaRule ofAppellate Procedure 302(a). 7Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

the doctrine are stringent and few. A court may revisit its own decisions orthose handed down in

a coordinatejurisdiction only in "exceptional circumstances where (1) new evidence is available,

or (2) a supervening new lawhas been announced." Zane v. Friends Hospital, 

### supra, 836 A.2d at 29. The "exceptional circumstance exception applies not where a court disagrees with a prior ruling, but where itis undisputable that the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create

amanifestinjustice iffollowed." 

### Id. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3132, a Petition to Set Aside a Sheriffs Sale may be granted only when the Petition is filed before the Sheriffs delivery ofthe deed, after which all defects 01' irregularities in the proceedings are foreclosed as grounds for attacking the sale, save for allegations ofabsence ofauthority and commission offraud by the Sheriffin the selling ofthe property. First Union National Bank v. Estate ofShevlin, 897 A.2d 1241, 1246 CPa. Super, 2006). The Deed to the Defendant's property was delivered by the Sheriffto the Plaintiffon December 5, 2012, and Defendant's Motions to Dismiss the Complaint and to Void the Sale were not filed until March 7,2013, or tIu'ee months later, and this additional "Petition to Set Aside Sale Based on Fraud and Lack ofAuthority", was filed on September 30, 2013, or over nine months following the Sheriffs conveyance ofthe Deed to the Plaintiff. On that basis, the Court could properly deny the Defendant's Petition after taking into consideration any evidentiary support for allegations offraud bythe Sheriffsurrounding the sale itselfand that the Plaintifflackedthe authority to sell this property, thus rendering review ofall remaining such contentions arising from tile entirety ofthe transactions and events that preceded the SheriffSale unnecessary. Continental Bank v. Frank, 343 Pa. Super 477, 495 A.2d 565 (1985)(opening confessed judgment inappropriate where mortgaged property has been sold at sheriff sale); Workingmen's Savings and LoanAssociation ofDellwood Corp. v. Kestner, 438 Pa. Super. 186,

8Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

652 A.2d 327 (1994)(only contentions of fraud in conduct of sheriff sale and not in prior proceedings maybeusedto attack sale). The record adduces that there are no contentions, much less an iota of clear and convincing evidence, submitted by the Defendant supporting a claim of fraud of any kind committed by the Sheriffin the handling ofthe sale and conveyance ofthe Deed to the subject propertyto the Plaintiff. M & T Mortgage Corporation v. Keesler, 

### supra. The Defendant's "lack ofauthority" contention questions the Plaintiff's power to convey this property on such grounds

as Plaintiff's lack of capacity to enforce the Note due to outstanding questions regarding the individuals and the mechanics involved in the Plaintiff's preparation, verification and filing of the Complaint and, although not mentioned at the Hearing, recordation ofthe assignments ofthe mortgage. (N.T.**7~8, 10~11,** **13~20, 25~26,**  36-49,**51~52, 55~58)(Emphasis**  added). The Defendant submitted argument following the Hearing by providing citations to

case authorities such as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Ralich, 982 A.2d 77, 80 (Pa. Super. 2009), and McGill v. Southwark Realty Company, 828 A.2d 430, 435 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) in support ofthe proposition that completion ofa SheriffSale and transfer ofa deed did not bar the litigation ofhis fraud claim as untimely. The Defendant averred that the RaUch court barred a claim offraud under such circumstances not because it was untimely, but because it was not set forth with sufficientparticularity as had beenhis many avermentspleading the alleged fraudulent actions perpetrated by the Plaintiff. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Ralich, 

### supra, 982 A.2d at 80. (Memorandum to [the Court] Based on Issues Raised at the Hearing [on] Defendant's Petition to Set Aside Sale, pp.**2~3).**


### " The Defendant cited the McGill opinionmerely for its inclusion ofthe statementthat .[a]lthough the delivery of an acknowledged deed usually forecloses a patiy's ability to petition to set aside the sale, an exception exists for sales tainted by the existence offraud", and
9Circulated 02/11/2015 10:39 AM

elaborated no further on that subject. McGill v. Southwark Realty Company, 

### supra, 828 A.2d at 

### 435 (Id., p. 3). Thus, the Defendant again has failed to demonstrate the requisite presence of fraud in the Sheriff's conduct ofthe sale. He has also ignored the fact that he had waived any ability to challenge Plaintiff's standing, capacity and authority to foreclose upon and to sell his property in order to collect the arrearages due and owing on the Note beoause ofhis failure ever to raise it in Preliminary Objections or in an Answer and New Matter to the Complaint. Erie Indenmity Co. v. Coal Operators Casualty Co., 441 Pa. 261, 265, 272 A.2d 465, 467 (1971); In

re Estate ofAlexander, 758 A.2d 182, 189 CPa. Super. 2000).4

Conclusion The Defendant was required to present clear and convincing evidence in support of the material obligations ofhis pleato set aside this Sheriffsale. M & T Mortgage Corporation v. Keesler, 

### supra. In the absence of such evidence, the Court properly concluded that the Defendant had not satisfied his burden ofestablishing entitlement to this relief. 

### Id. Therefore, and for all ofthe foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Petition to Set Aside Sale Based on Fraud and Lack ofAuthority was properly denied pursuant to the sOlmd discretion ofthis Court, and this ruling mustnotbe disturbed on appeal.

BY THE COURT:

CHARLES B. BURR, II

I:**.~:: ~·\;r:!.,**  

### ...**\\'-:..'~,**,", \.} ", (\**~** " ,;,.",\"\\ '; ,**'\~**(\**~ \J'.;~~\~;'** **.\v.~~ .:,~**  . 

## S.1.

• ,'f

... ('.<.\\\

....' t,\

. 4 Both ofthese case authorities are cited for the foregoing**reasob§·it1'·~:~:ec~nt non-l?r.~~(ihtial**  opinion filed by the Pennsylvania Superior COUJi bearing the citation, The CIT Grou v. Cumber aocli,\'Q'O'12 WL 1852073 (Pa. Super. 2012), in which that court resolved nearly on-point claims made in**Y~\Y1\'** milar**circum~tances** as those that were present in this case. Superior Court lOP 65.37 (A)(2014). 

### Ie\\ • 10 \, i ," ,-' '/'"' ".