IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WALTER CAMPBELL and MARLENE : CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-972

CAMPBELL (h/w) :

:

v. :

:

BANK OF AMERICA, NA :

OPINION

Norma L. Shapiro, J. August 11, 2009

This action arises from defendant’s failure to record satisfaction of a mortgage secured by

property jointly owned by plaintiffs. The action, arising under Pennsylvania state law and filed

in state court, was properly removed to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). 

The matter was tried without a jury. This opinion constitutes the court’s findings and

conclusions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1).

1

I. BACKGROUND2

On February 10, 1998, plaintiffs acquired title to real property consisting of 2.302 acres

located at 746 Langhorne-Yardley Road in Middletown Township, Pennsylvania (Bucks County

Parcel Number 22-21-42-2) (hereinafter, the “Property”). On or about November 3, 2000, the

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1) provides in relevant part, “In an action tried on 1

the facts without a jury . . ., the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law

separately. The findings and conclusions . . . may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of

decision filed by the court.” 

 Upon removal from state court on February 28, 2005, this action was assigned to the 2

calendar of Judge Clifford Scott Green. On June 8, 2007, following the death of Judge Green,

the action was reassigned to Judge Bruce Kauffman. On July 15, 2009, following Judge

Kauffman’s retirement from the bench, the action was reassigned to Judge Norma L. Shapiro.

1

Case 2:05-cv-00972-NS Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 1 of 7
Campbells obtained a construction loan in the amount of $389,200 from Summit Bank. The 3

construction loan was secured by: (1) a mortgage on the Property (hereinafter, the “Mortgage”);

(2) mortgages on three commercial or investment properties owned by the Campbells; and (3)

certificates of deposit totaling $89,000 purchased by the Campbells from Summit Bank. The

Mortgage was recorded in the Office of the Bucks County Recorder. The Campbells used the

construction loan to build a home on one of the two subdivided lots on the Property (hereinafter,

“Plot A” and “Plot B”). Upon the building’s completion, the Campbells repaid the construction

loan by obtaining a permanent mortgage on Plot A, on which their residence was built; they

planned to sell Plot B.

On May 18, 2001, the Campbells attended a closing on the permanent mortgage during

which they tendered full payment of $391,006.47, inclusive of interest and fees, of the

construction loan to Joseph Campbell (of no relation to plaintiffs), an employee of Summit Bank. 

Before and after the closing, Walter Campbell made numerous oral demands for a satisfaction

piece for the Mortgage to document plaintiffs’ repayment of the construction loan and clear the

Property of the encumbrance. By letter of June 27, 2003, Walter Campbell submitted a written 4

request for the satisfaction piece (Pl. Ex. 5). By letter dated June 18, 2004, Walter Campbell

acknowledged receiving satisfaction pieces for the three other mortgages used as security for the

 Summit Bank was acquired by Fleet National Bank, which was acquired by Bank of 3

America. At trial, Bank of America stated it was successor in interest to Summit Bank and Fleet

National Bank.

 Judge Green held that a two-year statute of limitations applies to plaintiffs’ claims. See 4

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524. Because plaintiffs filed this action on January 21, 2005, any requests

for satisfaction before January 21, 2003 are not cognizable. Memorandum and Order of October

25, 2006, p. 4 (paper no. 26).

2

Case 2:05-cv-00972-NS Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 2 of 7
construction loan, but not the satisfaction piece for the Mortgage secured by the Property (Pl. Ex.

8). On August 25, 2004, Bank of America tendered a satisfaction piece for the Mortgage. On

September 8, 2004, the Campbells recorded the satisfaction piece with the recorder of deeds. 

Bank of America does not contest these facts. The Campbells filed this action in state court on

January 21, 2005.

II. DISCUSSION

The Campbells claim they are entitled to damages under 21 P.S. §§ 681 and 682 for 5

defendant’s failure to record satisfaction of the Mortgage. The statute provides, in relevant part: 6

§ 681. Satisfaction of mortgage on margin of record or by satisfaction piece

 Any mortgagee of any real or personal estates in the Commonwealth, having

received full satisfaction and payment of all such sum and sums of money as are

really due to him by such mortgage, shall, at the request of the mortgagor, enter

satisfaction either upon the margin of the record of such mortgage recorded in the

said office or by means of a satisfaction piece, which shall forever thereafter

discharge, defeat and release the same; and shall likewise bar all actions brought,

or to be brought thereupon.

§ 682. Fine for neglect

 And if such mortgagee, by himself or his attorney, shall not, within forty-five

days after request and tender made for his reasonable charges, RETURN to the

said office, and there make such acknowledgment as aforesaid, he, she or they,

neglecting so to do, shall for every such OFFENCE, forfeit and pay, unto the party

or parties aggrieved, any sum not exceeding the mortgage-money, to be recovered

 Defendant argued that, because 21 P.S. §§ 681 and 682 were repealed on December 9, 5

2002, plaintiffs’ claim is governed by the Mortgage Satisfaction Act, 21 P.S. § 721-6(d)(1). 

Rejecting this argument, Judge Green held that plaintiffs’ claims are governed by 21 P.S. §§ 681

and 682 because the mortgage was satisfied on May 18, 2001, before the repeal became effective

February 7, 2003. Memorandum and Order of December 21, 2005 (paper no. 14).

 Judge Green granted summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs’ claims for 6

common law fraud, violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer

Protection Law and attorney’s fees. Memorandum and Order of October 25, 2006 (paper no. 26).

3

Case 2:05-cv-00972-NS Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 3 of 7
in any Court of Record within this Commonwealth, by bill, complaint or

information.

Claiming Bank of America provided the satisfaction piece 380 days after receipt of

Walter Campbell’s written request and the 45-day grace period under 21 P.S. § 682, the

Campbells seek $389,200, the maximum damages allowed by statute. The Campbells contend:

(1) strict proof of actual damages should not be required because the harm arising from

defendant’s violation is difficult to quantify; (2) Section 682 provides liquidated damages as a

remedy for defendant’s extensive delay in recording satisfaction; and (3) the legislature intended

the penalty under 21 P.S. § 682 to be in proportion to amount of the mortgage: “If the size of the

transaction is large the penalty may likewise be large.” Pl. Trial Memorandum, p. 3 (paper no.

36).

At trial, plaintiffs presented evidence of their purported damages. Mr. Campbell testified

he was embarrassed when he attempted to sell Plot B and the buyers discovered the uncleared

encumbrance. However, it seems unlikely that the Campbells had reason to be embarrassed by

the buyers’ discovery of the lien. The transaction was satisfactorily completed and plaintiffs

received the full purchase price; they were not required to indemnify the buyers against a

potential claim from defendant. Mrs. Campbell, who might also have been embarrassed, was

present in the courtroom but did not testify.

Mr. Campbell testified that defendant’s violation prevented plaintiffs from purchasing

investment property in North Brigantine, New Jersey. Plaintiffs, who own several properties at

the New Jersey shore including six in Brigantine, were planning to purchase two units of a

duplex property offered by the developer for $219,900 each, for a total investment of $439,800. 

4

Case 2:05-cv-00972-NS Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 4 of 7
The seller’s terms of sale offered the properties for $391,000 if plaintiffs paid cash; plaintiffs

would have to tender a non-refundable $50,000 deposit and the balance in cash within 30 days. 

Mr. Campbell testified that plaintiffs were unable to obtain a timely home equity loan on the

Property because the potential lender discovered, in addition to the permanent mortgage, a lien

for the Mortgage recorded as unsatisfied. Plaintiffs produced no documentary evidence of the

bank’s rejection or proof the bank would have granted financing if the Property had been

encumbered by one mortgage instead of two. Mr. Campbell testified that plaintiffs refused to

pursue financing by using one of several other properties they owned as collateral because that

alternative would have been more expensive. Plaintiffs offered no evidence of why the use of

alternative collateral would have made financing the North Brigantine properties more

expensive.7

Mr. Campbell testified that the North Brigantine properties he had hoped to purchase in

2004 for $215,000 are each worth $570,000 today, an appreciation of more than 265%. Plaintiffs

did not provide an appraisal of the North Brigantine properties and proffered no evidence for the

court to credit this estimate. Plaintiffs offered no evidence of litigation expenses incurred in

bringing this action to trial. Reasonable attorney’s fees might have been recoverable as damages

arising from defendant’s violation (although not as an independent claim under state law), but

plaintiffs failed to present evidence of litigation costs or argue for such an award. The evidence

of record demonstrates that plaintiffs suffered no actual monetary damages resulting from

defendant’s violation of 21 P.S. § 681. 

 Mr. Campbell testified that he chose not redeem the certificates of deposit because they

7

were producing income at an attractive interest rate.

5

Case 2:05-cv-00972-NS Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 5 of 7
The Campbells suffered some frustration from defendant’s violation, as evidenced by Mr.

Campbell’s visibly emotional and angry demeanor during his testimony. Although Mr. Campbell

is a knowledgeable attorney and real estate investor, he failed to take legal action until nearly

four years after settlement of the Mortgage. The Campbells’ delay in taking action suggests their

frustration was not as great as they claim.8

Both parties agree that the quantum of damages to be awarded under 21 P.S. § 682 is

discretionary. Plaintiffs failed to present evidence justifying their demand for $389,200, but are

entitled to a reasonable amount to compensate for the inconvenience and frustration caused by

defendant’s violation. The court will award damages of $3,892.00 under 21 P.S. § 682.

Plaintiffs also seek one percent of the delinquency for defendant’s failure to enter

satisfaction of the Mortgage under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8104, which provides in relevant part:

Duty of judgment creditor to enter satisfaction

 (a) GENERAL RULE.-- A judgment creditor who has received satisfaction of any

judgment in any tribunal of this Commonwealth shall, at the written request of the

judgment debtor, or of anyone interested therein, and tender of the fee for entry of

satisfaction, enter satisfaction in the office of the clerk of the court where such judgment

is outstanding, which satisfaction shall forever discharge the judgment.

 (b) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.-- A judgment creditor who shall willfully or

unreasonably fail without good cause or refuse for more than 90 days after written notice

in the manner prescribed by general rules to comply with a request pursuant to subsection

(a) shall pay to the judgment debtor as liquidated damages 1% of the original amount of

the judgment for each month of delinquency beyond such 90 days, but not less than $ 250

nor more than $ 2,500. Such liquidated damages shall be recoverable pursuant to general

rules, by supplementary proceedings in the matter in which the judgment was entered.

 During the relevant time period, Summit Bank was acquired by Fleet Bank, which was

8

acquired by Bank of America. Soon after Bank of America acquired Fleet Bank, the Campbells

received the missing satisfaction piece. Bank of America acted promptly in response to

plaintiffs’ written demand for the satisfaction piece.

6

Case 2:05-cv-00972-NS Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 6 of 7
The plain language of the statute applies to satisfaction of judgments, not mortgages. Plaintiffs

fail to allege or prove that defendant is a creditor who received satisfaction of a judgment in a

tribunal of this Commonwealth. To the contrary, plaintiffs claim they satisfied the mortgage

voluntarily and not under compulsion. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under 42 Pa. Cons.

Stat. § 8104.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs, having established defendant violated 21 P.S. §§ 681 and 682, are entitled to

statutory damages in the amount of $3,892.00 as a penalty and compensation for plaintiffs’ pain

and suffering, with no prejudgment interest. A judgment order follows.

7

Case 2:05-cv-00972-NS Document 42 Filed 08/12/09 Page 7 of 7