J-A33036-15

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION,

 Appellee

v.

THOMAS F. DORITY, TRACEY W. DORITY 

AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

APPEAL OF: THOMAS F. DORITY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

No. 922 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered March 6, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,

Civil Division at No(s): 2014-18410

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 02, 2016

Thomas F. Dority (Dority) appeals pro se from the order granting 

summary judgment in favor of Federal National Mortgage Association 

(Fannie Mae) and entering an in rem judgment against Dority in the amount 

of $88,798.82.1 We affirm.

Fannie Mae filed a complaint on June 23, 2014, seeking to foreclose on 

a mortgage. Therein, Fannie Mae asserted that the “[m]ortgage secures the 

indebtedness of a [n]ote executed by ... Dority on October 1, 2003 in the 

original principal amount of $112,922.00.” Fannie Mae’s Complaint, 

 

1

“Tracey W. Dority was dismissed as a party to this action by praecipe filed 

December 8, 2014 after her death.” Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 5/28/2015, 

at 1 n.1.
J-A33036-15

- 2 -

6/23/2014, at ¶4. Fannie Mae further alleged that it was the mortgagee by 

assignment by virtue of the following:

The mortgage, dated October 1, 2003, was recorded on 

December 22, 2003 in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in 

Montgomery County in mortgage book 10913, page 1713, 

instrument #2003643347. An assignment of mortgage was 

recorded from PHH Mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration 

Systems, Inc. [MERS] on June 25, 2008 in the Office of the 

Recorder of Deeds of Montgomery County in mortgage book 

12423, pages 02319-02321, instrument #2008066162. An 

assignment of mortgage was recorded from [MERS] to 

CitiMortgage, Inc. on August 29, 2013 in the Office of the 

Recorder of Deeds of Montgomery County in mortgage book 

13670, pages 01533-01537, instrument #2013091962. [Fannie 

Mae] is the mortgagee by assignment by virtue of an assignment 

of mortgage recorded from CitiMortgage, Inc. to [Fannie Mae] on 

February 26, 2014 in the Office of Recorder of Deeds in 

Montgomery County in book 13751, pages 00954-00957, 

instrument #2014011500.

Id. at ¶3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). 

According to the complaint, the land subject to the mortgage was 

owned by the Doritys and located at 1116 Pawlings Road, Audubon, 

Pennsylvania, 19403. Id. at ¶¶5-6. Fannie Mae alleged that the mortgage 

is “in default due to the failure of [the Doritys] to make payments as they 

became due and owing” and listed the amounts due, including interest. Id.

at ¶7. Fannie Mae attached to the complaint copies of the note, mortgage, 

and recorded assignments. Id. at Exhibits A, C.2

 

2 As explained by the trial court, Fannie Mae “refers to the assignments of 

mortgage collectively as Exhibit B in [its] complaint;” however, Fannie Mae 

“failed to include a cover sheet identifying Exhibit B,” and “the assignments 
J-A33036-15

- 3 -

On July 14, 2014, Dority filed a motion for extension of time in which 

to file an answer to Fannie Mae’s complaint, followed by an answer on July 

21, 2014. On August 5, 2014, Fannie Mae filed a reply to Dority’s “new 

matter.”3 On September 2, 2014, Dority filed an “Answer to Plantiffs’ [sic] 

Complaint and New Matters/Cross Complaint Amended” (amended answer). 

On September 15, 2014, the trial court denied Dority’s motion for extension 

of time as moot. On October 1, 2014, Fannie Mae filed preliminary 

objections to Dority’s amended answer, to which Dority responded. On 

December 4, 2014, the trial court sustained Fannie Mae’s preliminary 

objections and dismissed Dority’s amended answer. 

Fannie Mae then filed a motion for summary judgment on December 8, 

2014, which Dority opposed. On February 18, 2015, Dority filed a motion 

for summary judgment. On March 6, 2015, the trial court granted Fannie 

Mae’s motion for summary judgment and entered an in rem judgment 

against Dority in the amount of $88,798.82. Dority filed a motion for 

reconsideration on March 18, 2015, followed by a notice of appeal on April 3, 

2015.

 

are found at the end of Exhibit A.” TCO, 5/28/2015, at 5 n.4 (unnecessary 

capitalization omitted).

3

 “Dority did not include ‘new matter’ with his answer, but because his 

answer contained defenses and averments of fact that would normally be 

included in new matter, [Fannie Mae] replied as a precaution.” TCO, 

5/28/2015, at 2 n.2. 
J-A33036-15

- 4 -

On appeal, Dority purports to raise 17 questions for our consideration. 

It is clear from Dority’s argument, however, that he primarily challenges 

Fannie Mae’s standing to bring this foreclosure action.

The standards which govern summary judgment are well 

settled. When a party seeks summary judgment, a court shall 

enter judgment whenever there is no genuine issue of any 

material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or 

defense that could be established by additional discovery. A 

motion for summary judgment is based on an evidentiary record 

that entitles the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law. 

In considering the merits of a motion for summary judgment, a 

court views the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine 

issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. 

Finally, the court may grant summary judgment only when the 

right to such a judgment is clear and free from doubt. An

appellate court may reverse the granting of a motion for 

summary judgment if there has been an error of law or an abuse 

of discretion....

Swords v. Harleysville Ins. Companies, 883 A.2d 562, 566-67 (Pa. 

2005) (citations omitted). Summary judgment in mortgage foreclosure 

actions is subject to the same rules as any other civil action. Pa.R.C.P. 

1141(b).

With respect to Dority’s standing challenge on appeal, we observe 

that, other than pursuant to exceptions not relevant to this case, “all actions 

shall be prosecuted by and in the name of the real party in interest.” 

Pa.R.C.P. 2002(a). “[T]he mortgagee is the real party in interest in a 

foreclosure action.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupori, 8 A.3d 919, 922 

n.3 (Pa. Super. 2010). 
J-A33036-15

- 5 -

In the original mortgage instrument signed by Dority, PHH Mortgage 

Services is the named “Lender.” Fannie Mae’s Complaint, 6/23/2014, 

Exhibit A, Mortgage Instrument, at 1. That mortgage instrument provides 

that “Lender is the mortgagee under this Security Instrument” and that the 

subject property is mortgaged, granted, and conveyed to “Lender.” Id. at 

2-3. The mortgage instrument further explains that “[t]he Note or a partial 

interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one 

or more times” without prior notice to Dority. Id. at 13. Thus, the 

mortgage instrument clearly contemplates transfer of the mortgage. 

Moreover, a review of the recorded assignments Fannie Mae attached 

to the complaint reveals the following: by assignment recorded on June 25, 

2008, PHH Mortgage Services assigned the mortgage to MERS; by 

assignment recorded on August 29, 2013, MERS assigned the mortgage to 

CitiMortgage, Inc.; and by assignment recorded on February 26, 2014, 

CitiMortgage, Inc. assigned the mortgage to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae’s 

Complaint, 6/23/2014, Exhibit A, Recorded Assignments. Based on this 

unbroken chain of recorded assignments from the original lender to Fannie 

Mae, it is clear that Fannie Mae, as the mortgagee, has standing to bring this 

foreclosure action against Dority. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the 

trial court.

Order affirmed.
J-A33036-15

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/2/2016