J. A21022/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. SUCCESSOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

BY MERGER TO WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., : PENNSYLVANIA

:

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

LISA FERRERI A/K/A LISA A. FERRERI, :

:

Appellant : No. 403 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered January 16, 20151

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Civil Division at No.: 2009-42684

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2016

Appellant, Lisa Ferreri, defendant below, appeals from the January 16, 

2015 Order entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas 

granting Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this mortgage 

foreclosure action. We affirm.

We adopt the facts as set forth by the trial court. See Trial Court 

Opinion, filed 10/27/15, at 1-5. In summary, Wachovia Bank, N.A. 

(“Wachovia”) instituted this mortgage foreclosure action after Appellant 

 

1 Appellant purports to appeal from the Order entered on January 15, 2014. 

We note that the trial court dated its Order granting Summary Judgment in 

favor of Appellee on January 15, 2015, but the trial court did not file and 

enter this Order on the docket until the next day on January 16, 2015. We 

have changed the caption accordingly. See Pa.R.A.P. 108 (entitled “Date of 

Entry of Orders”).
J. A21022/16

- 2 -

defaulted on her mortgage for 1516 Surrey Lane in Wynnewood, 

Pennsylvania, in the amount of $269,015.93. After serving Act 912 notice of 

its intent to foreclose, Wachovia eventually filed a second Amended 

Complaint. Appellant responded with an Answer that included general 

denials, and an admission that she mortgaged the property to Wachovia. 

Appellant also raised twenty-six affirmative defenses, which the trial court 

dismissed with prejudice.

On April 14, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) became the 

plaintiff in this action pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 2352 as Wachovia’s 

successor by merger. On July 3, 2014, Wells Fargo filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment. On August 1, 2014, Appellant filed her response 

admitting that she had executed the note and mortgage, that she was in 

default, and that Wells Fargo merged with Wachovia as its successor 

generally.

On January 16, 2015, the trial court granted Wells Fargo’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment and entered Judgment on January 22, 2015. On 

January 26, 2015, Appellant filed a 424-page Motion for Reconsideration. 

On February 9, 2015, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal before the trial court 

had ruled on Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration.

 

2 Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Act (“Act 91”), 35 P.S. § 

1680.401c et seq.
J. A21022/16

- 3 -

Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant presents four issues for our review:

I. This Court has held that a foreclosing bank is not entitled to 

summary judgment when that bank cannot establish that it was 

the owner or holder in due course of the relevant promissory 

note when the mortgage foreclosure action was filed. Here, 

Wells Fargo has not established that it, or its predecessor in title, 

was the owner or holder in due course of the relevant 

promissory note when this mortgage foreclosure action was filed. 

Did the trial court commit an error of law or abuse its discretion 

when it granted Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment?

II. Whether fraud has been committed is a question of fact. 

Homeowner has alleged that fraud has been committed by 

Wachovia Bank and Wells Fargo. Did the trial court commit an 

error of law or abuse its discretion when it granted Wells Fargo’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment despite the existence of disputed 

issues of fact with respect to Homeowner’s fraud claims?

III. An Act 91 Notice is defective if it lists more than just the 

contact information for the county counseling agency where the 

property is located or when it is written on the mortgagee’s 

letterhead. A defective Act 91 Notice requires dismissal of the 

action. The Act 91 Notice received by Homeowner included 

contact information for counseling agencies in at least five 

different counties and was written on Wachovia Bank’s 

letterhead. Did the trial court commit an error of law or abuse 

its discretion when it granted summary judgment in favor of 

Wells Fargo, despite such evidence that the Act 91 Notice was 

defective?

IV. The federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures and Truth In 

Lending Acts required Wells Fargo to provide certain information 

to Homeowner that was not provided in this case. Did the trial 

court commit an error of law or abuse its discretion when it 

granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo, despite 

Homeowner’s claims that Wells Fargo violated these federal 

laws?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.
J. A21022/16

- 4 -

Each of Appellant’s four issues challenge the trial court’s Order 

granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Our Supreme Court has 

clarified our role as the appellate court as follows:

On appellate review, then, an appellate court may reverse a 

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

an abuse of discretion. But the issue as to whether there are no 

genuine issues as to any material fact presents a question of 

law, and therefore, on that question our standard of review is de 

novo. This means we need not defer to the determinations 

made by the lower tribunals. To the extent that this Court must 

resolve a question of law, we shall review the grant of summary 

judgment in the context of the entire record.

Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152, 1159 (Pa. 2010) 

(citations and quotation omitted).

A trial court may grant summary judgment “only in those cases where 

the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material 

fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Id. (citation and quotation omitted); see also Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035.2(1). 

“When considering a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must 

take all facts of record and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most 

favorable to the non-moving party.” Summers, supra at 1159 (citation 

omitted). “In so doing, the trial court must resolve all doubts as to the 

existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party, and, 

thus, may only grant summary judgment where the right to such judgment 

is clear and free from all doubt.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted).
J. A21022/16

- 5 -

“Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, 

he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive 

summary judgment.” Truax v. Roulhac, 126 A.3d 991, 997 (Pa. Super. 

2015), appeal denied, 129 A.3d 1244 (Pa. 2015) (citation and quotation 

omitted). “Further, failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient 

evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden 

of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “If 

there is evidence that would allow a fact-finder to render a verdict in favor of 

the non-moving party, then summary judgment should be denied.” Id. 

(citation and quotation omitted).

A trial court properly grants summary judgment in a mortgage 

foreclosure action “where the defendant[/mortgagor] admits that he had 

failed to make the payments due and fails to sustain a cognizable defense to 

the plaintiff’s claim.” Gateway Towers Condominium Ass’n v. Krohn, 

845 A.2d 855, 858 (Pa. Super. 2004); see also Bank of America , N.A. v. 

Gibson, 102 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 112 A.3d 

648 (Pa. 2015) (holding that entry of summary judgment is proper if the 

mortgagor admits that: (1) the mortgage is in default; (2) the mortgagor 

has failed to pay the obligation; and (3) the recorded mortgage is in the 

specified amount). Where specific denials are required, general denials to 
J. A21022/16

- 6 -

averments in a Complaint constitute admissions. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1029(b); 

see, e.g., Bank of America, supra at 466-67.

In her first issue, Appellant avers the trial court improperly granted 

Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment because Wells Fargo failed to 

prove it was the “owner or holder in due course of the relevant promissory 

note when the mortgage foreclosure action was filed.” Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

Appellant’s claim essentially challenges Appellee’s standing to proceed with 

the mortgage foreclosure action.3

The law is clear that only “the real party in interest” may prosecute a 

legal action. Pa.R.C.P. No. 2002(a). “[T]he mortgagee is the real party in 

interest in a foreclosure action.” PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Powell, 100 A.3d 

611, 619 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). Generally, when the original 

mortgagee company merges with another company, the surviving 

corporation becomes the mortgagee under the mortgage agreement, as it 

“succeeds to both the rights and obligations of the constituent corporations,” 

rendering the surviving corporation the real party in interest in a mortgage 

foreclosure action. See Park v. Greater Delaware Valley Sav. & Loan 

Ass’n, 523 A.2d 771, 775-76 (Pa. Super. 1987); 12 U.S.C. § 215a(e); 7 

P.S. § 1606.

 

3

Insofar as Appellant relies on Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co., 163 A. 

523 (Pa. 1932), for the first time on appeal, Appellant has waived such an 

argument by failing to present it in the lower court. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
J. A21022/16

- 7 -

No assignment or indorsement is necessary to bestow upon the 

surviving bank the status of the real party in interest to enforce a debt owed 

to its predecessor. 12 U.S.C. § 215a(e); 7 P.S. § 1606. This assumes, 

however, that the predecessor in interest was, at the time of the merger, 

itself entitled to enforce the note. Unless the predecessor in interest has the 

right to enforce the note, the successor by merger does not acquire the right 

to enforce the note. 13 Pa.C.S. § 3302(c). See also J.P. Morgan Chase, 

N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1267-68 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2013) (implying 

that succession by merger is sufficient proof to show ownership of note and 

mortgage).

As the trial court noted in its Opinion, Appellant admitted that she 

obtained a loan from Wachovia and executed a note and mortgage in favor 

of Wachovia. See Answer to Second Amended Complaint, R.R. at 26a; 

Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, R.R. at 70a-71a. 

When Appellant defaulted, Wachovia, as the original mortgagee, commenced 

the instant mortgage foreclosure action by filing a Complaint in 2009. 

Docket Entry from 12/11/2009, R.R. at 1a. As a result of Wachovia’s 

merger with Appellee Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo became the plaintiff as 

Wachovia’s successor, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 2352. See also Docket 

Entry from 4/14/2014, R.R. at 2a. Appellant admitted that Wells Fargo is 

Wachovia’s successor by merger “in general” and that it acquired Wachovia’s 
J. A21022/16

- 8 -

assets in 2010. Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, 

R.R. at 71a.

By virtue of statutory authority and case law, and most significantly 

Appellant’s own admissions, there is no question that Wells Fargo had 

standing to enforce the note. Appellant’s assertions to the contrary are 

baseless.

In her second issue, Appellant avers that the trial court improperly 

granted Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment because there is a 

question of fact as to Appellant’s fraud claims that she asserted in her 

Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, her Motion for 

Reconsideration, and her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement.

In order to raise a genuine issue of material fact at summary 

judgment, a defendant must do more than rest on the pleadings; he or she 

must meet the burden of producing facts to counter the plaintiff’s 

averments. N.Y. Guardian Mortg. Corp. v. Dietzel, 524 A.2d 951, 952-53 

(Pa. Super. 1987); Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035.3 (“adverse party may not rest upon 

the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings but must file a 

response...identifying (1) one or more issues of fact arising from evidence in 

the record controverting the evidence cited in support of the motion or from 

a challenge to the credibility of one or more witnesses testifying in support 

of the motion, or (2) evidence in the record establishing the facts essential 
J. A21022/16

- 9 -

to the cause of action or defense which the motion cites as not having been 

produced.”).

In addressing this issue, the trial court concluded as follows:

[Appellant’s] fourteenth assignment of error lacks merit. It 

presumes, falsely, that [Appellant] presented to this court in 

opposition to the [Appellee]’s [M]otion for [S]ummary 

[J]udgment competent evidence to support the assertions now 

made on appeal that loan application information was fabricated, 

that the loan made was predatory, or any other of the assertions 

[Appellant] now makes by her fourteenth assignment of error. 

[Appellant’s] fourteenth assignment of error lacks merit.

Trial Court Opinion at 12-13, 16. We agree.

Appellant did not attach any affidavits to her Response in opposition to 

Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment or her “Sur-Sur Reply[.]” Instead, 

Appellant relied exclusively on averments or denials contained in her 

Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. She failed to attach any 

evidence to support her opposition to Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Although Appellant included several exhibits related to Fannie 

Mae, the merger between Wachovia and Wells Fargo, and Wachovia’s Act 91 

Notice in her “Sur-Sur Reply[,]” these exhibits did not relate to or support 

her fraud claims.

After the trial court granted Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

Appellant filed a 424-page Motion for Reconsideration and annexed affidavits 

from a certified fraud examiner and a securitization analyst, and a letter 

from a second certified fraud examiner to support her averment that “the 

bank was taking advantage of the limited understanding of interest rates of 
J. A21022/16

- 10 -

an elderly woman and using predatory and deceptive practices.” Appellant’s 

Motion for Reconsideration, Exhibit A, R.R. at 191a. This was the first and 

only “evidence” of fraud or predatory lending practices presented to the trial 

court to support her opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal before the trial court ruled on her Motion 

for Reconsideration, and the trial court never permitted Appellant to 

supplement her Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment with these 

additional exhibits. The trial court committed no error of law and did not 

abuse its discretion in concluding that Appellant had presented no issue of 

fact that would preclude summary judgment. Appellant’s argument to the 

contrary lacks merit.

In her third issue, Appellant avers that because the Act 91 Notice was 

defective, the trial court improperly refused to dismiss the mortgage 

foreclosure action. Appellant contends that the Notice violated Act 91 

because it was printed on Wachovia letterhead, failed to accurately 

summarize the balance due, and included a list of numerous counseling 

agencies rather than just the agency in Appellant’s county. This issue lacks 

merit.

Act 91 requires a mortgagee pursuing foreclosure to send notice to a 

mortgagor advising her of the delinquency and providing 30 days to have a 

face-to-face meeting with the mortgagee or with a consumer credit 

counseling agency to attempt to resolve the delinquency. 35 P.S. § 
J. A21022/16

- 11 -

1680.403c(a), (b)(1). The purpose of Act 91 Notice is “to instruct the 

mortgagor of different means [s]he may use to resolve [her] arrearages in 

order to avoid foreclosure on [her] property and also [to give] a timetable in 

which such means must be accomplished.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. 

Monroe, 966 A.2d 1140, 1142 (Pa. Super. 2009).

In the instant case, Appellee filed a copy of the Act 91 Notice as an 

Exhibit to its Motion for Summary Judgment. See Appellee’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, 7/3/14, Exhibit D; R.R. at 826a. In addressing 

Appellant’s challenge to the Notice, the trial court observed:

First, [Appellant] failed to present [] the notices that she actually 

received and she failed to present any evidence to show how the 

notices presented by the [Appellee] were at variance with the 

amounts she actually owed on her mortgage. Second, 

[Appellant] failed to challenge the notices she received on the 

ground that too many [counseling] agencies were listed. [] In 

any event, the [Appellant] failed to respond to the [Appellee’s] 

[M]otion for [S]ummary [J]udgment with any evidence that the 

notices she received in any way confused her or otherwise 

caused her to default on her mortgage. [Appellant]’s [] 

assignment of error lacks merit.

Trial Court Opinion at 12 (citation omitted).

Based on our thorough review of the record, we discern no abuse of 

discretion or error of law in the trial court’s disposition of this issue. 

Accordingly, Appellant’s third claim does not merit relief.

In her fourth issue, Appellant contends that Wells Fargo violated (1) 

the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”) by failing to respond to her request to 

identify the owner of the mortgage; and (2) the Real Estate Settlement 
J. A21022/16

- 12 -

Procedures Act (“RESPA”) by failing to respond to a request for information 

about the note and the mortgage. This issue is waived.

As noted supra, issues not raised in the trial court are waived for 

purposes of appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). This Court has previously held that 

“a non-moving party’s failure to raise grounds for relief in the trial court as a 

basis upon which to deny summary judgment waives those grounds on 

appeal.” Harber Philadelphia Center City Office Ltd. v. LPCI Ltd. 

P'ship, 764 A.2d 1100, 1105 (Pa. Super. 2000). These strategic choices in 

the lower court are consequential because the “decision to pursue one 

argument over another carries the certain consequence of waiver for those 

arguments that could have been raised but were not.” Id.

The trial court here concluded that Appellant waived her TILA and 

RESPA claims pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) because Appellant did not 

present these arguments in the lower court in her Response to the Motion 

for Summary Judgment. See Trial Court Opinion at 1; Appellee’s Brief at 

53. Instead, Appellant presented only a general objection to the calculation 

of finance charges based on TILA. She failed to present any issues related 

to Wells Fargo’s failure to respond under TILA or any issues related to 

RESPA. As a result, Appellant has waived this fourth claim of error on 

appeal.
J. A21022/16

- 13 -

In summary, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law and 

affirm the trial court’s January 16, 2015 Order granting Summary Judgment 

in favor of Wells Fargo.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/15/2016
Appendix I 

5/13/10, #0009 (Exhibit "A"). 

recordation mark of the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds. Second Amended Complaint, 

plaintiff attached mortgage papers dated July I 0, 2006, signed by the defendant, bearing the 

Complaint, 5/13/10, #0009, ,r,r 3-6. As an exhibit to the second amended complaint, the original 

proper notice of intention to foreclose was served upon the defendant. See Second Amended 

interest in over a year; (3) that the defendant owed $269,015.93 on the mortgage; and (4) that 

Pennsylvania; (2) that the defendant was in default because she had not paid any principal or 

to the original plaintiff for the real property she owned at 1516 Surrey Lane, Wynnewood, 

second amended complaint by which it alleged: (1) that defendant Lisa Ferrari gave a mortgage 

On May 13, 2010, the original plaintiff, Wachovia Bank, National Association, filed its 

I. PROCEDURAL msTORY 

summary judgment in this in rem action sounding in mortgage foreclosure. 

15, 2015, entered of record on January 16, 2015. That order granted the plaintiffs motion for 

Defendant Lisa Ferrari has filed a notice of appeal from this court's order dated January 

BARRETT,J. OCTOBER '7 t , 2015 

OPINION 

IN MORTGAGE 

LISA FERRARI a/k/a LISA A. FERRARI FORECLOSURE 

vs. 

2009-42684 

403 EDA 2015 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Successor by 

Merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A. 

fY,PA 

2009-426R-l-OI02 10 27 2015 I0:14 . .\J\I "105Jl8JJ 

Opinion 

R~pta'22556R9& Fee:S0.00 

~(ark ( .evy • :0.lontCo Prothonotary 

LIV IL lJI V I-'1Ul'li 

IN THE COURT OF ( 

Circulated 10/28/2016 02:38 PM
2 

I Defendant did so while denying that she had given the mortgage to "Wachovia Bank National Association 

Wachovia Bank DSR 04003-014." Defendant's Answer, 9/10/10, #0022, ~ I. Defendant made that denial 

mistakenly believing that the original plaintiff's mailing address, that being "Wachovia Bank DSR 04003-014," was 

part of its name. 

Motion, 7/3/14, #0054, 112. See Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 112 (ignoring the substance of 

(Exhibit "H''). Defendant did not respond to the original plaintiffs request for admissions. 

plaintiff is entitled to collect attorney's fees. See Motion for Summary Judgment, 7 /3/14, #0054, 

plaintiff properly served on the defendant the required legal notices; and (3) that the original 

defendant to admit: (1) the principal and interest due on the mortgage; (2) that the original 

(noting that the request was served upon defendant's prior counsel). That request asked the 

admissions. Motion for Summary Judgment, 7/3/14, #0054, 112; Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 112 

On November 2, 2011, the original plaintiff served upon the defendant a request for 

objections. 

counterclaims, with prejudice, upon consideration of the original plaintiff's preliminary 

Honorable William R. Carpenter, of this court, dismissed the defendant's new matter and 

collecting payment. See Counterclaim, 1127-42. By order entered on October 20, 2011, the 

counterclaims arising from the original plaintiffs conduct in originating the mortgage loan or in 

Matter, 9/10/10, #0022, pp. 1-7. Defendant also purported to set forth five separate 

Defendant also filed a list of twenty-six affirmative defenses designated as new matter. See New 

allegations, the defendant responded "Denied" while admitting that she had given the mortgage 

to "Wachovia Bank National Association." Defendant's Answer, 9/10/10, # 0022, 13.1 

Defendant's Answer, 9/10/10, #0022, 12. To the remainder of the original plaintiffs 

Defendant admitted expressly that she had mortgaged her property at 1516 Surrey Lane. 

On September 10, 2010, the defendant filed an answer to the second amended complaint. 
3 

2 There was no factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff was generally the successor to the original plaintiff. See 

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, 8/1/14, #0055, 12 ("It is also admitted that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is 

the successor to Wachovia Bank[,] in general, having obtained the assets of Wachovia Bank in 20 I 0. "). See also 

Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit "C" (merger documentation). 

original plaintiff's assets in 2010 and that the plaintiff was the original plaintiffs successor, in 

she was in default. Similarly, the defendant conceded that that the plaintiff had obtained the 

summary judgment. Defendant admitted that she had executed the note and mortgage, and that 

On August 1, 2014, the defendant filed her response to the plaintiff's motion for 

indicating that a copy of the motion was served upon defendant on July 3, 2014. 

the successor mortgagee."). To its motion, the plaintiff attached a certificate of service 

5-6. See also Plaintiff's Reply, 8/19/14, #0058, 14 (reasserting that "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is 

defendant had given to the original plaintiff. Motion for Summary Judgment, 7/3/14, #0054, 11 

plaintiff had been merged into the plaintiff and that that the plaintiff possessed the note that the 

failure to respond to the requests for admissions. Plaintiff averred in its motion that the original 

defendant's general denials to the second amended complaint, and based on the defendant's 

On July 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment, based on the 

service indicating that the substitution was served upon the defendant on April 14, 2015. 

Defendant filed no opposition to the substitution.2 

4/14/14, #0053, 12. Contemporaneously with its substitution, the plaintiff filed a certificate of 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and the resulting bank is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." Substitution, 

2352." That filing indicated that "[o]n March 20, 2010, Wachovia Bank, M.A. merged with 

asserting its right to substitution by filing its ''Substitution of Successor Plaintiff Under Rule 

On April 14, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., became the plaintiff in this action by 

counsel any Request for Admissions.") ( emphasis added). 

original plaintiffs allegation and denying that defendant "ever served on Defendant's current 
4 

3 However, the defendant took the position that the plaintiff could not have acquired the note from the 

original plaintiff by way of succession, as follows: 

Plaintiff, Wells Fargo, is not the successor in interest by operation of merger to 

the initial lender, because the loan was securitized prior to the date of merger 

and had been transferred from Wells Fargo to at least one other entity. 

Specifically, the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") had 

claimed to own the Note prior to that time. 

Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 128. 

position, ... " Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 124. 

home equity line of credit in first position on the Mortgage and recording the Mortgage in second 

original plaintiff violated a pooling and servicing agreement when it "record[ed] Defendant's 

Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 14. This was apparently because the defendant claimed that the 

Defendant's third defense was that "the Property is [not] encumbered by the Mortgage." 

it."); Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 113, 14-16. 

#0055, 16 ("Plaintiff is [not] the current holder of the Mortgage and has [no] right to enforce 

23 (asserting that the original plaintiff sold "the loan" to "private investors"); Response, 8/1/14, 

is [not] the holder in due course or other valid owner of the Note."); Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 1 

Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 128. See also Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 12 (''Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") before the original plaintiff sold its assets to the plaintiff. 

note or the mortgage when it "transferred" the note or the mortgage to the Federal National 

The second defense was that the original plaintiff forfeited its right to enforce either the 

in the inducement); Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 130 (alleging "additional fraudulent acts"). 

#0055, 125 (referring to predatory loan practices); Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 129 (alleging fraud 

actions of [the original] Plaintiff." Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 12. See also Response, 8/1/14, 

The first of these was that the "[defendant] entered into the Note and loan due to fraudulent 

however, the defendant nevertheless opposed the plaintiffs motion on four discernable grounds. 

general. Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 12. 

3 Defendant attached to her response no exhibits, 
5 

Horne v. Haladay, 728 A.2d 954, 955 (Pa.Super.1999) ( citing Pa. R. Civ. P. 1035.2). "In actions 

genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 

answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits demonstrate that there exists no 

A motion for summary judgment is properly granted when "the pleadings, depositions, 

II. DISCUSSION 

but will rather be quoted as appropriate below, owing to their length. 

assignments of error for appeal span seven typewritten pages will not be set out here at length, 

appeal, as directed by this court's order entered on February 17, 2015. The defendant's 

On March 10, 2015, the defendant filed a concise statement of errors complained of on 

I 

for reconsideration when the defendant filed a notice of appeal, on February 9, 2015. 

reconsideration totaled 424 pages. The undersigned had not yet decided the defendant's motion 

court's order dated January 15, 2015. With its attachments, the defendant's motion for 

On January 26, 2015, the defendant filed a 20 page motion for reconsideration of this 

plaintiff on that date. 

plaintiff and against the defendant on January 22, 2015, pursuant to the praecipe filed by the 

motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, an in rem judgment was entered in favor of the 

dated January 15, 2015, entered of record on January 16, 2015, the court granted the plaintiff's 

The parties presented oral argument to the undersigned on January 15, 2015. By order 

Defendant was not provided the proper payoff amount as required by the notice."). 

meet the lender in person, as required, since Plaintiff is not the true lender in this matter. 

also Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 122 ("Specifically, Defendant was neyer given the opportunity to 

41 P.S. §§ 4~3(b), et seq., and 35 P.S. §§1680.403c, et seq. Response, 8/1/14, #0055, 18. See 

The fourth defense asserted was that the notices defendant received failed to comply with 
6 

for in rem foreclosure due to the defendant's failure to pay a debt, summary judgment is proper 

where the defendant admits that he had failed to make the payments due and fails to sustain a 

cognizable defense to the plaintiffs claim. Gateway Towers Condominium Ass'n v. Krohn, 845 

A.2d 855 (Pa.Super. 2004) ( citing First Wis. Trust Co. v. Strausser, 439 Pa.Super. 192, 653 A.2d 

688, 694 (1995)). See also Cunningham v. McWil/iams, 714 A.2d 1054, 1057 (Pa.Super. 1998) 

("In a mortgage foreclosure action, summary judgment is properly granted where 'the 

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.?') (citing Landau v. 

Western Pennsylvania National Bank, 445 Pa. 217, 225-26, 282 A.2d 335, 340 (1971)). A 

defendant admits the material portions of a complaint in mortgage foreclosure, by operation of 

Pa.R.C.P. 1029, when that defendant files an answer containing general denials. E.g., Bank of 

America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa.Super. 2014). See also First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. 

Strausser, 653 A.2d 688, 692 (Pa.Super. 1995) ("in mortgage foreclosure actions, general denials 

by mortgagors that they are without information sufficient to form a belief. as to the truth of 

averments as to the principal and interest owing must be considered an admission of those facts") 

(citing New York Guardian Mortgage Corp. v. Dietzel, 524 A.2d 951, 952 (1987)). 

Here, in the matter now on appeal, the case is squarely within the rule by which general 

denials to a complaint in mortgage foreclosure amount to admissions justifying the grant of 

summary judgment. Here, the defendant responded "denied" to all of the plaintiff's material 

allegations. Moreover, the defendant's failure to respond to the requests for admissions 

propounded by the plaintiff established the plaintiff's prim a facie claim in mortgage foreclosure 

as "[t]he matter is admitted unless, within thirty days after service of the request, or within such 

shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves 
7 

2. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment 

in favor of Plaintiff, because there are material facts in question on 

which there is a general dispute. Plaintiff's use of an affidavit 

from a bank officer who was in no way ever involved in the 

Defendant's second assignment of error is as follows: 

2. Defendant's Second Assignment of Error 

reversing the order entered by this court granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. 

reservation of appellate rights. Defendant by this paragraph set forth no grounds to support 

This assignment of error raises no cognizable issue on appeal. Rather, it is a purported 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 2. 

1. Defendant intends to complain on appeal all issues 

raised both at oral argument and in the pleadings. Pursuant to Rule 

1925(b)(4)(vi), because the Court's Order dated January 15, 2015 

states no reasons for the granting of Plaintiffs Motion for 

Summary Judgment, this Statement is being expressed in only 

general terms. Defendant reserves the right to address issues in 

any opinion of the Court which did not previously appear of 

record. See Ryan v. Johnson, 522 Pa. 555, 563 A.2d 1237 (1989). 

Furthermore, to the extent that this Honorable Court is not basing 

its decision in any way on the errors of which Defendant has 

complained, Defendant reserves the right to amend this statement 

to take into account the specific errors which defendant can discern 

from an opinion of this Honorable Court. 

Defendant's first assignment of error is as follows: 

1. Defendant's First Assignment of Error 

concise statement. 

This court will next address the assignments of error the defendant set forth in her 

properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. 

the general rule that such deemed admissions are "conclusively established"). This court 

by the party or the party's attorney." Pa.R.C.P 1014(b). See also Pa.R.C.P. 1014(d) (setting forth 

upon the party requesting the admission an answer verified by the party or an objection, signed 
8 

of error lacks merit. 

from consideration any need for this court to weigh any evidence. Defendant's third assignment 

failed to respond at all to the requests for admissions. Defendant's judicial admissions removed 

the defendant failed to adequately respond to the second amended complaint and the defendant 

record as developed contained evidence that required a determination of fact. As noted above, 

This assignment of error lacks merit as it is unsupported in fact since it presumes that the 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 3. 

3. This Honorable Court erred by applying an incorrect standard 

when it granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff by failing 

to rule in favor of the non-moving party. "Lastly, we will 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." JP Morgan Chase Bank 

NA. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1268 (Pa. Superior Court, 2013). 

Defendant's third assignment of error is as follows: 

3. Defendant's Third Assignment of Error 

summary judgment. Defendant's second assignment of error lacks merit. 

deemed admissions were sufficient grounds to entitle the plaintiff to grant of its motion for 

foreclosure in its second amended complaint and in its requests for admissions. Defendant's 

the plaintiffs bank officer. As noted above, the plaintiff set forth a prima facie case in mortgage 

court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in sole reliance upon the affidavit by 

This assignment of error lacks merit as it is unsupported in fact since it presumes that this 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, pp. 2-3. 

transactions concerning this matter should have been disregarded 

as the basis for a motion for summary judgment. See Nanty-Glo v. 

American Surety Co., 309 Pa. 236, 163 A.2d 523 (1932). 
9 

5. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff in finding that Plaintiff was a holder 

Defendant's fifth assignment of error is as follows: 

5. Defendant's Fifth Assignment of Error 

fourth assignment of error lacks merit. 

ownership of a note and mortgage to support the entry of summary judgment. Defendant's 

defendant in this appeal because it implies that succession by merger is sufficient proof to show 

of JP Morgan Chase Bank NA. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa.Super. 2013) militates against the 

underlying assignments. Here, in the matter now on appeal, there are no assignments. The case 

and note following a succession and merger, if there were sufficient proof of the chain of the 

63 A.3d 1258 (Pa.Super. 2013), it was taken as given that the appellee would own the mortgage 

ownership by assignment of the note and mortgage. In JP Morgan Chase Bank NA. v. Murray, 

A.3d 1258 (Pa.Super. 2013), the defendant challenged the evidence supporting the chain of 

would include the note and mortgage, necessarily. In JP Morgan Chase Bank NA. v. Murray, 63 

she admitted that the substituted plaintiff acquired the assets of the original plaintiff, which 

matter now on appeal admitted that she gave the note and mortgage to the original plaintiff and 

This assignment of error lacks merit because it ignores the fact that the defendant in the 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 3. 

4. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment 

in favor of Plaintiff by failing to consider the effects of the 

decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in JP Morgan Chase 

Bank NA. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1268 (Pa. Superior Court, 

2013), holding that a genuine issue of material fact to preclude 

summary judgment exists where Plaintiff "has failed to establish 

possession of the original Note, indorsed in blank." 

Defendant's fourth assignment of error is as follows: 

4. Defendant's Fourth Assignment of Error 
10 

to this court. 

the defendant's sixth assignment of error raises matters that where de hors the record presented 

obtained and they were not filed as exhibits in response to the plaintiffs motion. Accordingly, 

Ms. McDonnell in any of these papers. There is no mention of the documents she purportedly 

sur-sur reply on September 18, 2014, and a brief on September 18, 2014. There is no mention of 

the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Defendant filed a response on August 1, 2014, a 

Defendant's sixth assignment lacks merit as raising matters not presented in response to 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, pp. 3-4. 

6. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment 

in favor of Plaintiff when it permitted Plaintiff to argue as agent, as 

successor by merger, and as owner of the Note without proof of 

standing to proceed in any of these roles. As a result, this 

Honorable Court failed to require Plaintiff to prove standing in any 

capacity while commencing this action. In Plaintiffs response to a 

formal inquiry by Defendant's agent, Marie McDonnell, Wells 

Fargo produced documents that clearly admit that they are not the 

owner nor the assignee, but are at best a servicer of an 

undetermined entity. 

Defendant's sixth assignment of error is as follows: 

6. Defendant's Sixth Assignment of Error 

merit because it ignores these admissions. 

plaintiff acquired the assets of the original plaintiff. Defendant's fifth assignment of error lacks 

admitted that she gave the note and mortgage to the original plaintiff and she admitted that the 

assignment of error lacks merit. The matter now on appeal is a case where the defendant 

This assignment of error lacks merit for the same reason that the defendant's fourth 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 3. 

in due course of the note in question (the "Note") or that Plaintiff 

was ever in physical possession of the Note, or ever an owner of 

the Note, as Plaintiff presented no evidence of those facts. 
11 

9. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment 

in favor of Plaintiff by failing to consider the expert testimonies of 

Defendant's ninth assignment of error is as follows: 

9. Defendant's Ninth Assignment of Error 

the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as addressed previously. 

Defendant's eighth assignment lacks merit as raising matters not presented in response to 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 4. 

8. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment 

in favor of Plaintiff by failing to consider the responses of Plaintiff 

to the inquiries of Defendant's agent, Marie McDonnell, to 

Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant as set forth in Federal law with 

regard to the question of note ownership, in essence failing to 

consider the effect of Plaintiff's admission that neither Wells Fargo 

nor Wachovia is the owner or the assignee of the Note. 

Defendant's eighth assignment of error is as follows: 

8. Defendant's Eighth Assignment of Error 

lacks merit. 

on appeal there were no assignments of the mortgage. Defendant's seventh assignment of error 

Chase Bank NA. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa.Super. 2013) does not control. In the matter now 

Defendant's seventh assignment of error lacks merit for the same reason that JP Morgan 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 4. 

7. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment 

in favor of Plaintiff by failing to consider the effect of the holdings 

in the case of Montgomery County, Pa. ex rel. Becker v. 

MERSCORP, Inc., No. 11-cv-6968, 2014 WL 550805 (E.D. Pa. 

February 12, 2014), and its holding that every transfer of a 

mortgage is a conveyance and needs to be recorded, which 

Plaintiff has failed to do so in this case. 

Defendant's seventh assignment of error is as follows: 

7. Defendant's Seventh Assignment of Error 
12 

how the notices presented by the plaintiff were at variance with the amounts she actually owed 

this court the notices that she actually received and she failed to present any evidence to show 

response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. First, the defendant failed to present to 

Defendant's tenth assignment of error lacks merit as raising matters not presented in 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, pp. 4-5. 

10. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff by failing to consider that Plaintiff 

has twice deceived the Court by presenting to the Court fraudulent 

and defective notices with improper amounts due that are not true 

and correct copies of the notices actually received by Defendant. 

Plaintiff attempts to hide the fact that Plaintiff has twice sent 

notices with counselling agencies in multiple counties instead of 

only Defendant's county. Proper notification is required in 

Pennsylvania to commence a foreclosure action. 35 P.S. 

1680.403c. See Washington Mutual v. Carr, CCP Adams County 

(July 5, 2006), published in Adams Co. Legal Journal, Vol. 49, No. 

4, pp. 17-21, June 15, 2007. Act 91 notice defective, foreclosure 

complaint dismissed because notice included a list of all 

counseling agencies in Pennsylvania rather than a list of agencies 

in the country in which the property was located. 

Defendant's tenth assignment of error is as follows: 

10. Defendant's Tenth Assignment of Error 

motion for summary judgment. Defendant's ninth assignment of error lacks merit. 

might be referring to deposition testimony, l'l:o transcripts were filed in response to the plaintiffs 

noted that there was no testimony in this case, expert or otherwise. To the extent the defendant 

response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as addressed previously. It should be 

Defendant's ninth assignment of error lacks merit as raising matters not presented in 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 4. 

William Mc Caffrey, Marie McDonnell, and Amy Andersson. All 

three experts have testified to Plaintiff not having the standing to 

bring the action as well as to the improper amounts due, their 

method of being calculated, and amounts already paid. 
13 

with a pooling and servicing agreement, when the borrower is neither a party to nor a third party 

or (2) request a judicial determination that a loan assignment is invalid due to noncompliance 

holding that a borrower lacks standing to (1) challenge the validity of a mortgage securitization 

E.D.Pa. 2012) ("[w]hatever the context, it appears that a judicial consensus has developed 

of a contract to which she is not a party. Accord In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 284 (Bkrtcy. 

clear to this court how she can raise as a defense, in the matter now on appeal, the alleged breach 

#0055, 124. See also Sur-Sur Reply, 9/18/14, #0061, 17. In no way did the defendant make 

"materially violating [the] terms of a pooling and service agreement ('PSA')." Response, 8/1/14, 

argument that the "[p Jlaintiff or its predecessor" forfeited its rights under the mortgage for 

Defendant's eleventh assignment of error lacks merit as it refers to the defendant's 

Concise Statement, 3/1.0/15, #0078, p. 5. 

11. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff by failing to consider the 

subordination and lien position of the subject loan. 

Defendant's eleventh assignment of error is as follows: 

11. Defendant's Eleventh Assignment of Error 

mortgage. Defendant's tenth assignment of error lacks merit. 

that the notices she received in any way confused her or otherwise caused her to default on her 

defendant failed to respond to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment with any evidence 

Association v. West, Case No. 12CA0061 (OH Ct. App., Dist 9, Jan. 21, 2014). In any event, the 

(setting forth nothing more than a block quote from the Ohio opinion PNC Bank, National 

ground that too many counselling agencies were listed. See, Brief, 9/18/14, #0062, pp. 13-14 

on her mortgage. Second, the defendant failed to challenge the notices she received on the 
14 

Defendant's thirteenth assignment of error is as follows: 

13. Defendant's Thirteenth Assignment of Error 

error lacks merit. 

ha[ d] possession of the original Note." 100 A.3d at 621. Defendant's twelfth assignment of 

summary judgment because it was not evidence that "Fannie Mae (rather than [the plaintiff]) 

the (mortgagors'] loan." 100 A. 3d at 621. That was insufficient to preclude the entry of 

material fact because two documents "describe[d] Fannie Mae as the 'investor' and 'owner' of 

(Pa.Super. 2014). In Powell, the mortgagors argued that they had raised a genuine issue of 

Fannie Mae lacked merit as did the appellees in PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Powell, 100 A.3d 611 

acquired the assets of the original plaintiff. In this regard, the defendant's argument regarding 

were any assignments in this case, just as it ignores the defendant's admission that the plaintiff 

Defendant's twelfth assignment of error lacks merit as it presumes, falsely, that there 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 5. 

12. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff by failing to consider Federal 

National Mortgage Association's ("Fannie Mae") claim of 

ownership of the loan along with the supporting expert testimony 

to this fact as well as Plaintiff's own admission of lack of 

ownership. Pa 1141-1150 states that Plaintiff in a mortgage 

foreclosure must set forth parties to the mortgage, any 

assignments, and a statement of the place of record of the mortgage 

and assignments. Wells Fargo v. Janosick, CCP Allegheny County 

(March 23, 2009). 

Defendant's twelfth assignment of error is as follows: 

12. Defendant's Twelfth Assignment of Error 

eleventh assignment of error lacks merit. 

beneficiary of the securitization agreement, i.e., the PSA. ") ( citation omitted). Defendant's 
15 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 6. 

14. This Honorable Court erred when it permitted the action to 

move forward to summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff despite 

the numerous acts of fraud perpetuated by the Plaintiff prior to and 

during this action. This Honorable Court has been provided with 

proof of fraud including, but not limited to, the fabrication of loan 

application information benefitting the [P]laintiff, exercise of an 

illegal right to offset, i[n ]proper lien position, lack of recordation, 

and fraud in the inducement through predatory practices. 

Defendant's fourteenth assignment of error is as follows: 

14. Defendant's Fourteenth Assignment of Error 

judgment. Defendant's thirteenth assignment of error lacks merit. 

forgery" would be insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary 

In any event, the defendant tacitly admits that the plaintiff possesses the note, and "possibly. a 

immediately after" the matter was orally argued and thereby submitted to this court for decision. 

thirteenth assignment of error that the grounds relied upon did not exist prior to "almost 

response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendant acknowledges in her 

Defendant's thirteenth assignment of error lacks merit as raising matters not presented in 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 5. 

13. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff by failing to consider that the Note 

was never attached to a pleading nor seen by Defendant nor by any 

court until this year and that the signature is possibly a forgery. A 

national practice by Wells Fargo of fabricating such documents for 

litigation was ruled upon in Cynthia Carrsow-Franklin v. Wells 

Fargo, Case No. 10-20010 (RDD) Chapter 13 Entered 1/29/2015 

(United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York) by 

Judge Drain of White Plains, New York, almost immediately after 

the oral arguments in this case. Defendant has presented evidence 

of the fabrication instructions for attorneys discussed by Judge 

Drain in a lengthy opinion. 
16 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 6. 

16. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff, because it has presumed without 

evidence that Plaintiff has been injured when expert testimony has 

declared that the loan was not funded by Plaintiff. 

Defendant's sixteenth assignment of error is as follows: 

16. Defendant's Sixteenth Assignment of Error 

response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. 

Defendant's fifteenth assignment of error lacks merit as raising matters not presented in 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 6. 

15. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff by honoring the fraud bars for the 

Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act (RESP A) since both include many specific laws 

and many have been amended with the new law of which Plaintiff 

is still in violation. Defendant's agent, Marie McDonnell, has 

made inquiries that have gone unanswered to this day on behalf of 

Defendant in violation of Federal law. Answers would enlighten 

this Honorable Court if provided since they speak directly to 

ownership of the Note and standing to bring the action. 

Defendant's fifteenth assignment of error is as follows: 

15. Defendant's Fifteenth Assignment of Error 

of error lacks merit. 

defendant now makes by her fourteenth assignment of error. Defendant's fourteenth assignment 

information was fabricated, that the loan made was predatory, or any other of the assertions the 

competent evidence to support the assertions now made on appeal that loan application 

defendant presented to this court in opposition to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment 

Defendant's fourteenth assignment of error lacks merit. It presumes, falsely, that the 
17 

18. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff in its interpretation and/or 

misinterpretation of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted 

under Pennsylvania law, and its understanding of conveyances and 

negotiable instruments, if any are applicable in this matter, as well 

as its understanding of assignments and recordation laws relating 

to securitized mortgage notes. 

Defendant's eighteenth assignment of error is as follows: 

18. Defendant's Eighteenth Assignment of Error 

seventeenth assignment of error lacks merit. 

mortgagee and the defendant filed an answer admitting to that allegation. Defendant's 

a case where the original plaintiff alleged in its second amended complaint that it was the 

to allege how it became the successor-in-interest to the mortgagee. The matter now on appeal is 

Pa. D. & C.41h 136 was one where the plaintiff was given the opportunity to amend the complaint 

of Washington Mutual v. Carr, CCP Adams County (2007), 2006 WL 2568287 (Pa.Com.Pl.), 77 

Defendant's seventeenth assignment of error lacks merit as not based in fact. The case 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 6. 

17. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff by permitting the Plaintiff to mislead 

this Honorable Court regarding the meanings, definitions, and 

relationships of owners, servicers, agents, holders, and holders in 

due course. Washington Mutual v. Carr, CCP Adams County 

(2007), 2006 WL 2568287 (Pa.Com.Pl.), 77 Pa. D. & C.41h 136. 

Because Plaintiff failed to allege facts establishing the relationship 

between it and the original mortgagee in its mortgage-foreclosure 

complaint, the court granted defendant's preliminary objection 

based on plaintiffs lack of capacity to sue. 

Defendant's seventeenth assignment of error is as follows: 

17. Defendant's Seventeenth Assignment of Error 

response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. 

Defendant's sixteenth assignment of error lacks merit as raising matters not presented in 
18 

plaintiff. Rather, the defendant filed an answer and new matter on September 10, 2010. 

preliminary objections to the second amended complaint filed on May 13, 2010 by the original 

Defendant's twentieth assignment of error lacks merit as the defendant did not file 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 7. 

20. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff when it failed to consider that the 

Note was not attached to the pleadings. Since this is a suit on a 

contract, the contract must be attached pursuant to Pennsylvania 

Rule of Civil Procedure 1019. 

Defendant's twentieth assignment of error is as follows: 

20. Defendant's Twentieth Assignment of Error 

plaintiffs successor by merger. Defendant's nineteenth assignment of error lacks merit. 

plaintiff purchased the assets of the plaintiff and it followed that the plaintiff is the original 

This is a case where the original plaintiff was the mortgagee and the defendant admitted that the 

Defendant's nineteenth assignment of error lacks merit for reasons addressed previously. 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 7. 

19. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff when it failed to consider the lack of 

Plaintiff's proof of establishing a proper chain of title in the history 

of the instruments in question. 

Defendant's nineteenth assignment of error is as follows: 

19. Defendant's Nineteenth Assignment of Error 

sufficient specificity to permit meaningful discussion. 

Defendant's eighteenth assignment of error lacks merit as its generic nature lacks 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 7. 
19 

R. STEPH~N BARRETT, J. 

~./~--~ 

BY THE COURT: 

order dated January 15, 2015, entered of record on January 16, 2015, should be affirmed. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully suggested that this court's 

III. CONCLUSION 

error, above. Defendant's twenty-first assignment of error lacks merit. 

addressed earlier in this opinion, in the discussion of the defendant's eleventh assignment of 

#0055, 124. See also Sur-Sur Reply, 9/18/14, #0061, 17. It lacks merit for the same reasons 

"materially violating [the] terms of a pooling and service agreement ('PSA')." Response, 8/1/14, 

argument that the "[p ]laintiff or its predecessor" forfeited its rights under the mortgage for 

Defendant's twenty-first assignment of error lacks merit as it refers to the defendant's 

Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 7. 

21. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff when it failed to recognize the 

possibility that a Pooling and Servicing Agreement of the Trust 

that has been identified as including the instrument in question 

would play a significant role in determining the standing of this 

action and that Courts have recognized a homeowner's standing in 

matters relating to securitized loans that have been pooled into a 

real estate mortgage investment conduit governed by a pooling and 

servicing agreement. 

Defendant's twenty-first assignment of error isas follows: 

21. Defendant's Twenty-First Assignment of Error 

for appellate review. 

Defendant's twentieth assignment of error therefore raises an issue that has not been preserved 
20 

Copies mailed on 1j /_,J /, r-;;: 

Edward D. Conwa~ to: 

Christine L. Graham, Esquire 

Manrico A ~liti, Jr Esquire