J

- A01001

- 20

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P.

Appellant

v.

PATRICIA A. MCCARTHY : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 873 EDA 2019 Appeal from the Order Entered February 1, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 160403381

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J. *
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MAY 11, 2020 Appellant MTGLQ Investors, L.P., appeals from the order granting in part and denying in part its exceptions to the proposed schedule of distribution following the sheriff’s sale of real property. We vacate and remand for further proceedings c onsistent with this memorandum. The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history. We briefly state from the record that Appellant’s predecessor, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) , commenced a mortgage foreclosure action against Patricia A. Mc C arthy (Appellee) on April 28, 2016. On August 11, 2017, upon Fannie Mae ’ s praecipe, a default judgment was entered against McCarthy in the amount of $57,303.22

. The real property at issue

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- A01001

- 20

- 2

-

wa s sold at a sheriff’s sale on November 6, 2018 for $110,000 . The Philadelphia Sheriff filed a proposed schedule of distribution on November 9, 2018. According to the proposed schedule of distribution, Appellant was set to receive $57,303.22 , other credit ors and costs would be paid, and $38,398.30 in unused proceeds would be left over

. Appellant timely filed exceptions to the proposed schedule of distribution pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 3136(d) on November 16, 2018 , seeking a total of $80,073.74 from the proceed s of the sheriff’s sale . Appellant also filed a supplemental brief in supp ort of its exceptions and supplemental exhibits to its exceptions on January 30, 2019

. The trial court held a hearing on January 31, 2019 , where only counsel for Appellant appeared. N.T., 1/31/19, at 2

. Appellant advised the trial court that it had received $57,303.22 from the sheriff in accordance with the proposed schedule of distribution. N.T. at 3

- 4 ; Appellant’s Suppl. Br. in Supp. of E xceptions , 1 / 3 0 / 19 , at 2 (unpaginated)

. Appellant argued that it was still entitled to an additional $22,7 12

. 85

. N.T. at 4

- 5; Appellant’s Suppl. Br. in Supp. of E xceptions at 2 (unpaginated)

. Appellant rested on the documents it had previously filed as exhibits to its exceptions , and the trial court took the exceptions under advisement. N.T. at 4

- 6.J

- A01001

- 20

- 3

-

On February 1, 2019 , 1 the trial court grant ed and denied Appellant’s exceptions in part, and award ed Appellant $2,345.20

. The trial court’s order did no t indicate the basis for its decision. Appellant timely appeal ed on February 21, 2019 . Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellee has not participated in this appeal. Appellant raises two issues for our review:
1. Did the tria l court err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion by denying MTGLQ its full requested relief as Pennsylvania law and the mortgage contract entitle MTGLQ to recover all of the amounts requested?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying MTGLQ’s request to disburse $22,770.52 in surplus proceeds while awarding an arbitrary amount where the Exceptions were unopposed, and MTGLQ’s expenditures, to the penny, were substantiated by one hundred seventy
- five (175) pages of evidence ? Appellant’s Brief at 3

. In both of its issues , Appellant argues that the trial cour t erred in granting in part and denying in part its exceptions to the proposed schedule of distribution. Appellant claims that under the terms of the mortgage and applicable law , it was entitled to the full amount sought in its exceptions

. Id.
at 24

- 27. Appellant further argues that because the trial court did not explain

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 The order is dated January 31, 2019, but was docketed on February 1, 2019.J

- A01001

- 20

- 4

-

how it calculated its award, this C ourt must find the trial co urt erred, misapplied the law, and abused its discretion. Id. at 32

- 33. We begin by noting that that an order s ustaining or dismissing exceptions to a sheriff ’ s schedule of distribution “ is a final order and is, therefore, appealable. ” Mid - State Bank & Tr. Co. v. Globalnet Int ’l , Inc. , 710 A.2d 1187 , 1190 (Pa. Super. 1998)

. Where exceptions to the distribution of proceeds of a foreclosure sale are filed, a court will hear and determine them according to law and equity. Extraco Mortg. v. Williams , 805 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2002). Our standard of review with respect to the action of a chancellor in equity is limited. We will reverse only where the trial court was “palpably erroneous, misapplied the law or committed a manifest abuse of discretion.” Ther mo – Guard Inc. v. Cochran , 596 A.2d 188, 193 (Pa. Super. 1991). Where there are any reasonable grounds for the trial court ’ s decision, we must affirm it. Id. State St. Bank v. Petrey , 819 A.2d 581, 58 4 (Pa. Super. 2003) (footnote omitted). A trial court ’s failure to make findings of fact may result in remand because an appellate court cannot determine whether , for example, an abuse of discretion occurred. Delbaugh v. Delbaugh , 487 A. 2d 417, 419 (Pa. Super. 1985) (“ We, as an appellate court, are not in a position to make findings of fact

. . . . Without some indication of the reasons for the award or the weight given the various pieces of evidence, we cannot determine whether the [trial] court committed an abuse of d iscretion. ”)

. Similarly, the “[a]dmission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and a trial court ’ s rulings on the admission of evidence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion or misapplication of law.” Maisano v. Av ery , 204 A.3dJ

- A01001

- 20

- 5

-

515, 523 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted) , appeal denied , 217 A.3d 210 (Pa. 2019). Instantly, t he trial court concluded that There is no law to support the contention that exceptions to the sheriff’s proposed schedule of distribution mus t be granted by the [ c ] ourt simply because they are unopposed. Similarly, there is no law to support the claim that th [e c ] ourt should order the release of funds to Appellant simply because there are “sufficient funds.” . . . Th[e c]ourt ordered the distr ibution of funds to the Appellant in the amount that is justified by evidence. Trial Ct. Op. at 4. The trial court further stated: based on the documents submitted by Appellant, the [ c] ourt determined that Appellant had only justified the legitimacy of $2,345.20 in costs. The Sheriff distributed $57,303.22 to Appellant, representing the balance due on the mortgage and the Sheriff's costs. Appellant’s Exceptions to the Proposed Schedule of Distribution additionally requested $10,031.81 in interest, $5,523.00 in escrow, $11,187.87 for “corporate advanc e”, and $82.84 in late charges. Appellant submitted 181 pages of documents, most of which were unauthenticated and not supported by receipts o r affidavits. Id . at 3

- 4. 2 The trial court , however, did not indicate which of the documents it considered. Likewise, the trial court did not explain how it arrived at the figure of $2,345.20 it awarded to Appellant.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 We note that Appellee did not appear. Under Pa.R.E. 103, a “party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only [if a party] makes a timely objection, motion to strike, or motion i n limine .” Pa.R.E. 103. Because Appellee failed to appear, Appellee did not preserve any claim of error regarding the authenticity of the evidence. Courts, generally, should not act as counsel for the parties.J

- A01001

- 20

- 6

-

We agree that simply because Appellant’s exceptions were unopposed is not a basis to grant them. However, a bsent further findings of fact or more detailed rulings regarding the documents submitted by Appellant , we are unable to find a reasoned basis for the trial court’s award

. S ee Delbaugh , 487 A.2d at 419

. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court ’ s order and remand this matter to the trial court . On remand, the trial court shall make findings of fact sufficient to determine whether Appellant established it was entitled to additional funds it sought from the sheriff’s sale. Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Colins joins the memorandum. Judge Murray files a concurring statement in which Judge Colins joins.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/11/20