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 WACHOVI A BANK, N.A., : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellee :

: v. : : LISA FERRERI A/K/A L ISA A. FERR ERI, : : Appellant : No. 403 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order Entered January 16, 2015 1 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 fa cts 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 Janu ary 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, Pe nnsylvania, in the amount of $269,015.93. After serving Act 91 2 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 merg ed 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 F ebruary 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 h as 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 est ablished 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 whe n 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 counseli ng 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 le ast 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 defect ive? 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 A ppellee. 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 wh ether 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 th is 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 jud gment “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 co urt 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 quotati on 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 om itted). 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 admi ts 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 toJ. 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 co urse 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 r eal 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 t he 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 corporatio n 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. 2 013) (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 Comp laint 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’sJ. 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 ra ise 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 evidenc e 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 essentialJ. 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]oti on 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 assignmen t 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 incl uded 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 f or 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 t aking advantage of the limited understanding of interest rates ofJ. 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 Appellan t 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 summ ary 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 N otice 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 requ ires 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 present ed 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] fail ed 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 SettlementJ. 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 g rounds 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 lo wer 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 TIL A 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 on ly 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 err or 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: 11/15/2016App e ndix I

5 / 1 3/10 , # 0009 (Exhibit " A" )

. r ecordation mark of the Montg o mery Cou n ty Reco r de r of D eed s . S e c o n d Amended Complaint , p l ain ti ff attached m ortgage papers dated Ju l y I 0 , 2006, s i g ned b y th e defendant , bearing the Comp l aint , 5/13 / 10, # 0009 , 

## ,r,r 3-6. As an e x hibit t o the s econd amended complaint , th e original p r oper notice o f in te n tion to fo r eclose was s erved upon the defendant. See Second Amended intere s t in over a year; (3) that the defendan t owed $ 269 , 0 1 5

. 93 o n the mortgage ; and (4 ) that Penn s y l vania; (2) that the defe n dant was in default because she had not paid any prin c ipal o r to th e o rigi n al p l ain ti ff for the real p roperty s he owned at 1 516 Surrey L a ne , Wynnewood, s eco n d ame n ded comp l ain t by w h ic h it alleged: ( 1) that d e fendant Li s a Ferrari gav e a m ort gage On May 13 , 2010, the o riginal plai ntiff , Wachov i a Bank , N ational Assoc i ati on , fil e d its I. PROCED URA L ms T ORY summary judgment i n thi s i n rem action s ounding in mortgage foreclosu r e. 1 5, 20 1 5, entered of record on January 1 6 , 20 1 5. That o r der g ranted the plaintiff s motion for Defendant Li sa Ferrari has filed a noti ce of appeal from th i s court' s order dated January O CT OB E R 

### '7 

## t , 201 5 BARRE T T,J
. OP IN ION IN MORTGAG E F ORE C LOS U RE LISA F E RRARI a

/ k/a LI SA A. FE RRARI vs. 2009-42684 403 E DA 2015 WEL L S FARGO BANK , N. A

. , Suc cess or b y M e r g er to Wachovia Bank , N. A

. fY, P A 20 0 9-42 6 R -l- OI02 10 27 20 1 5 I0 : 14

..\J \I " 1 0 5 J l 8JJ

Op i n i on R ~ p t a '2 2 55 6R9& Fe e:S0. 00

~ ( ark ( .e v y • :0. lon t Co Pr o th o n o t ary L I V IL lJI V I -' 1U l 'li IN TH E C O URT O F ( Circulated 10/28/2016 02:38 PM

### 2 I Defe n dant di d so w h ile denyin g that she had g i ven the m ort g a g e to " Wachovia Bank National Association Wac h ovia Bank DSR 04003-014." Defendant's Answer, 9 / 1 0/ 10, # 0022, ~ I. Defendant made that denia l mistaken l y believin g that the original p l ai ntiff's mai ling address , that b ein g " Wachovia B ank D SR 04003-014 , " was part of its name. Mo ti o n , 7 /3/14, #0054, 1 1 2. 

### See Response, 8/1/1 4 , # 0055, 1 1 2 (ignoring the substance of (Ex hi b i t "H''). Defe n dant d i d no t respo n d to the orig i nal p l aintiffs request for admissions

. p l ai n ti ff i s entitl ed to collect attorney's fees. 

### See Mo ti o n for Summary Judgme n t, 7 / 3 / 1 4 , # 0054, p l ai n ti ff p roperly served o n th e d efe n dant the require d l egal notices; and (3) th at the orig i nal defendant to admit: ( 1 ) the principal and i n terest due on the mortgage; (2) th at the original ( n oti ng th at th e request was served upo n defe n dant's p ri o r counse l ). That re q uest asked th e admissions

. Motion for Summary J udgmen t , 7/3/14, #0054, 11 2; Response, 8 / 1/ 1 4, #0055, 112 On Novemb er 2, 20 1 1, the orig in al plain ti ff se rved upo n th e defe n dant a request for objec ti o n s . counter cl aims, with prejud i ce, upo n co n s i derati on of the original plaintiff's preliminary H o nor ab l e W illi am 

### R. Carpenter, of th is court , d i smissed th e defendan t's n ew matter an d co ll ecti ng payment. 

### See C ounterclai m , 1 1 27

- 4 2. By orde r entered o n October 20, 20 1 1, the co u nterc l aims ari si n g fro m th e orig i nal p l ain tiffs conduc t i n originating the mortgage l oan or in Matt er, 9/10/ 1 0, #0022, p p. 1- 7
. D efe n dant al so purported to set forth five separate D efendant a l so fi l ed a li st of twe n ty
- s i x affirmati ve defenses designated as new matter. 

### See New all egati o n s, th e defendant res p o n ded " D enied" w h i l e admitting th at s h e h ad given the mortgage
to "Wac h ovia Bank Nationa l Assoc i ati on . " Defendant's Answer, 9/ 1 0/ 10, # 0022, 13

. 1 D efe n da nt ' s Answer, 9 /10/ 1 0, #0022, 12. To th e r emai nder of the ori ginal p l ai ntiffs Defendan t admitted express l y that s h e h ad mortgaged her property at 15 1 6 Surrey Lane. O n September 1 0, 20 1 0, the defendant filed an answer to the second amended complaint.3

2 Th ere w a s no factual di s p u te a s to whether the pl aintiff wa s ge n e r all y the s u c c esso r to th e o rigi nal p l ai ntiff

. See Re s pon s e to Moti on for Summ ary Jud g m e nt , 8 / 1 /1 4 , #005 5, 12 (" It is al s o ad mitte d th at Well s Farg o B ank , N.A. is the succes s or t o W a ch o vi a B ank[, ] i n g en e ral , havi n g o btain e d the ass et s of W a ch ov i a B ank in 20 I 0. "). S ee a lso M otion for S umm ary Jud g ment , Exh i bit " C " ( m erger d o cu m e n tatio n )

. original plaintiff' s ass e t s in 2010 and th at the pl aintiff wa s the o riginal plaintiff s s ucc ess or, in s he was in default. Similarly, the defendant conceded th at that the pl ain tiff had obtained the s ummary judgment. Defendant admitted that she had executed the n o te and mortg age, and th at On August 1, 2014, the defendant filed her re s ponse to th e plaintiff' s moti o n for indicating that a c o py of the motion w as s erved upon defendant on Jul y 3, 2014. the s ucce s sor mortgage e." )

. T o it s motion , the plaintiff att ach e d a certificate of service 5-6

. S ee als o Plain tiff's R e ply, 8 / 19/14 , # 0058 , 14 ( rea s serting th at " W e ll s Far g o Bank, N.A. is defendant had given to the original plaintiff. Moti o n for Summary Judgment , 7 / 3/14, # 0054 , 1 1 plain tiff had been merged into th e plaintiff and that that the plaintiff po ss e s sed the note that the failure to re s pond to the reque sts for admission s . Plain tiff av erred in its motion that the original defendant's ge n eral denials to the second amended comp l aint , and ba s ed on the defendant ' s On Ju l y 3, 2014 , the plaintiff filed its motion for s ummary judgmen t, based on the service indicati ng that the s ub s titu tion was s erved upon the defendant on April 14 , 2015

. Defendant filed no opp o sition to the substitution

. 2 4/14 / 14, #0053 , 12

. Contemporaneou s l y with its sub s titution, the plaintiff filed a certificate of Well s Fargo Bank, N.A. and the resulting bank is Well s Far g o Bank , N.A. " Sub s titution , 2352. " That filing indicated that " [ o ]n March 20, 2010, Wach ov ia Bank , M
. A. m e rged with asserting its right to substi tution by filing its ' 'Substitution of Succe s sor Pl aintiff Under Rule On April 14 , 2014, Wells Fargo Bank , N. A. , became the plaintiff in this action by couns e l any Request for Admi s sions. " ) ( emphasis added )

. orig i nal plaintiffs allegation and denying that defendant " ever served on Defendant' s cu rre nt4 3 Ho w ever , th e defendant took th e po s iti on that the plainti ff could not have acqui r ed the note from the origi n al plaintiff by way of successio n , as fo ll o w s:

P lai ntiff, W e lls Fargo , is not the successor in inte r est by o p erati on of merger to the initial lender, becau se the loan was se curi ti zed prior to th e dat e of merger and h a d been transferred fro m Wells Fargo to at least on e oth er e n tity. Speci fi cally, th e Federal Nati onal Mortgage Associati on ( " Fannie Mae ") had claimed to ow n the Note pri or to that time

. Respo n se , 8 / 1 / 14 , # 0055 , 128

. pos i ti on , .. . " R esponse, 8 / 1/14 , # 0 055, 12 4. h ome eq ui ty lin e of c r ed i t in firs t pos i ti on o n the Mortgage and record in g th e Mo rt gage in second ori gina l p l ai nti ff v i o l ated a poo li ng and servici n g ag r eement whe n it "record[ed ] Defe n dant's Respo n se , 8 / 1/14 , # 0 055, 14

. Thi s was apparently because th e defe n da n t clai me d that th e D efen d an t ' s thi rd defe n se was th at " th e P roperty i s [not ] encumb ere d b y the Mortgage." i t."); R e s p onse, 8/1/ 14 , #005 5 , 11 3, 1 4 -1 6. #0055 , 1 6 ("P l ai n ti ff i s [not ] the curre n t h o l der of th e M ortgage and has [no] right to enforce 23 (assertin g that th e o ri g in al pl ai n tiff sold "th e l oan" t o "private investo r s"); R esponse, 8/1 / 1 4 , i s [ n o t] the h olde r i n du e cou r se o r other valid owner of the Note."); R espo n se, 8 / 1/1 4 , # 0055, 1 R espo n se, 8 / 1 /14, # 0 055, 1 2 8. 

### See also Response, 8 / 1/14, # 0055, 12 ( ' 'We ll s F argo Bank, N
. A. Mortgage Associatio n (" F annie M ae") before the origi n al p l ainti ff so l d its assets to the p l ainti ff. n ote o r the mo rt gage whe n it "tran sferred " th e note or the mortgage to th e Federal Nati onal T h e seco n d defense was th at th e o rig in al plainti ff forfei t ed its rig h t to enforce either th e in th e inducement); R esponse, 8/1/ 1 4, #0055, 1 30 (al l eg i ng " add i ti onal frau du lent acts " ). #0055, 1 25 (refe rrin g to p r edatory l oan p r ac ti ces); R esponse , 8/1 / 14, #0055, 1 2 9 (alleging fraud acti ons of [ th e ori gi n al] P l ainti ff." Respon s e , 8/ 1 / 1 4, #0055 , 12. 

### Se e als o Response , 8 / 1 / 14, T h e fi rst of th ese was th at the "[defendant] entered into th e Note a n d l oan du e to frau du l ent h owever, the defe n dant neverth e l ess opposed th e plai ntiffs moti o n on fo ur d i sce rn ab l e grounds

. ge n e r al. R espo n se, 8/1/ 1 4, #0055, 12

. 3 D efenda n t attac h ed to h e r res p onse no exhibits ,5



### H orne v . Haladay, 72 8 A.2d 954, 955 (Pa.S u pe r. 1999) (ci ti n g Pa. R. Civ

. P. 1 035.2). " In acti o n s ge nuin e issue of mate ri al fact an d th e mov in g party i s e n ti tled to j udgment as a matt e r of law

. " answers to inte rrogatories , admi ss i o n s o n file , an d affidavits de m o n strate th at there 

### exis t s no A moti on fo r s ummary j u dg m e n t i s p r operly g r ante d w h e n "the plead in gs, depositio n s, II
. DISC U SSION bu t w i ll r athe r b e q u ote d as app r o pri ate b elow , owing to the i r le n gth

. ass i g nm e n ts o f e rr o r fo r ap p eal span seven typewritt e n pag e s will n ot be set out here at length , appeal , as di r ected by th i s co urt 's o r de r e n te r ed o n F e b ru ary 1 7 , 20 1 5. T h e d efendant's On Mar ch 10, 20 1 5, th e defe n dan t fil ed a c o nc ise stat eme n t of errors comp l ained of o n

I for reco n s i deration w h e n the de f e n da n t filed a noti ce of appeal , on Feb ru ary 9, 2015

. re c o n siderati o n t ot a led 4 2 4 p ages. The und e r signed had not yet dec i ded th e defe nd ant's motio n c o u rt 's o r der d ated January 1 5, 201 5

. W i th i ts attachme n ts, the defe n dan t's motio n for O n January 26 , 2 01 5 , th e d efe nd an t filed a 20 page m otio n fo r reco n si de rati on of th i s pl ai n tiff on th at d ate
. p l ai n tiff an d a g ain st th e defe n dan t o n Janu ary 22, 20 1 5, purs u ant to th e p raec i pe filed by the moti o n for s u mmary j u dgment. Ac c o r d i ng l y, an 

### i n rem j u dgme n t was entered i n favor of th e date d January 15 , 20 1 5 , e n tered o f reco rd o n Jan u ary 1 6 , 2 015 , th e c o urt granted the p lai n tiff's The p arti es prese n ted oral argument to the u n dersig n e d o n Janu ary 1 5, 20 1 5. B y order D e f e nd ant w as n ot p rovided th e p r oper pay o ff amo u nt as required b y the notice.")

. m e e t th e l end e r 

### in pe r so n , as re q u i re d , s in ce P lai nti ff is n ot the tru e lender in 

### th is matter. 

### a lso R espo n se, 8/1/ 14 , #0 0 5 5 , 1 22 ("Speci fi cally, Defe n dant was neye r give n the o p portu ni ty to 41 P .S. §§ 4 ~3(b) , et seq . , a n d 35 P. S

. §§1 6 80 .4 03c, et seq. Response, 8 / 1 / 14 , #0055, 1 8. See T h e fo urth d efe n se asse rt ed was th at the notices defendant r eceived faile d to comply with6

for 

### in rem foreclosure d u e to the defe n dant's fail ure to pay a debt, summary j udgment is proper where the defendant admits that he had fai led to make the p ayments due and fails to sustain a cog ni zable d efense to th e p l aintiffs claim

. 

### Gateway Towers Condominium Ass'n v . Krohn, 845 A

. 2d 855 ( P a.Super. 20 0 4) ( c i ti ng 

### First Wis. Trust Co. v. 

### Strausser, 439 Pa.S u per. 192, 653 A.2d 68 8 , 6 94 (1995)). 

### See a lso Cunningham v. 

### McWil/iams, 7 1 4 A.2d 1 054, 10 57 (Pa.S u per. 1 998) (" In a mortgage forec l os ur e a c tion, summary judgme n t is p r operl y gran ted where 'the

m ortgagors ad mit th at th e mortgage i s i n defau l t, that th ey have fail ed to pay i n te r est on the

o bli gation, and that th e r ecorded mortgage i s in the spec i fied amou n t.?') (citin g 

### Landau v. 

### Western P ennsylvania National Bank, 445 Pa. 217, 225 -2 6, 282 A.2d 335, 3 4 0 (197 1 ))

. A defe n dan t admi t s the m aterial portio n s of a comp l ain t in mortgage forec l osure, by o p eration of P a .R
. C

. P
. 1029, w h e n that defen d an t files an answer contai ni ng general denia l s . E.g., Bank of Ameri ca, N.A. v . G i bson, 10 2 A .3d 4 62 (Pa.Super. 2014). 

### See also First Wisconsin Trust Co
. v . Str a usser, 653 A.2 d 688, 692 ( P a.Super

. 1995) ("in m ortgage foreclosure actio n s, general den i als b y mortgagors that th ey ar e witho u t inf ormati on sufficie nt to form a belief

. as to the truth of

av erments as to the p rin cipal an d in ter e st owi n g mu st be co n s i de r ed an admission of th ose facts") (c i tin g 

### New York Gua r

dian Mortgage Corp. v. Dietzel, 524 A. 2 d 951, 952 (19 8 7)). H ere, i n the matte r now on appea l , the case i s square l y with i n the ru l e by wh i ch gene r al de ni al s to a c o mp l ain t in mortgage fo r eclosure amou n t to admiss i ons jus tifying the grant of summary j ud gment. H e re, the d efendan t res p o n ded "de n ied" to a ll of th e p l ainti ff's materi al

a ll egations

. Moreove r , th e d efe n dant's failure to respo n d to the r equests fo r admi ss i o n s propou n ded by th e p l ain ti ff establ i s h ed th e pl ai nti ff's 

### prim a facie clai m in mortgage foreclosure

as "[t ]h e matter i s ad mitted u n l ess, w i thi n thirty days afte r service of the request, or within such

s h orte r o r l o n ge r ti me as the co u rt may a ll ow, the party to who m the r e qu est i s d ir ected se rves7 2

. T h is Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment i n favo r of P lain ti ff, because there are material facts in question o n wh i ch there i s a general dispute. P l ain tiff's use of an affi d av i t from a bank officer who was i n no way ever i nvo l ved in the D efendant's second ass i gnme n t of error is as follows:

2 . Defendant

' s Second As signm

e nt o f E rro r reversi n g the orde r entered b y th i s court granti ng the p l aintiffs moti on for summary judgment. reservati on of appellate ri g h ts
. Defe n dant by this paragrap h set forth no grounds to support Thi s assig nm ent of error raises n o cognizab l e issue on appeal. Rather , it i s a purported Co n cise Stateme n t, 3/10/15 , #0078, p. 2

.

1. D efendant inte n ds to complain on appeal all issues raised both at oral argument and in the p l ead i ngs. Pursuant to Rule 1925(b)(4)(v i ), because th e Court's Order dated January 15 , 20 1 5 states no reasons for the granting of P l aintiffs Motion for Summary Judgme n t , this Statement i s being exp r essed in only gene r al terms. Defendant reserves the right to address issues i n any opinion of the Court which d i d not previous l y appear of record. See 

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

. Furthe rmore, to the extent that this Honorable Court is not bas i ng its decis i on i n any way on the errors of w h ich Defendant has complained, D efe n dant reserves the right to amend this statement to take i n to acco u nt the specific e rr ors wh i ch defendant can discern from an opi ni on of this H onorable Co u rt. Defe n dant's first assignment of error is as follows:

1. Defendant

's F ir s t As signm

e n t of Err o r conc i se statement. This court w ill next a d dress the assignments of error the defendant s et forth in her properly granted the plainti ff's motion for summary j u dgment. the gener al ru l e that such deemed admi ssions 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 admiss i on an answer verified by the party or an objection , signed8

of error l ac k s m e ri t. fr o m co n s i derati o n an y n eed fo r thi s co u rt t o we i gh any ev i dence. D efendant ' s thi r d assignment fail ed to r es p o n d at a ll to th e r e quests fo r ad mi ssio n s . De fendant's ju dicial admi ssions removed th e defendant fail ed to adeq u ate l y r es p o n d to the s econd ame n ded complai nt and the defendan t record as d eve l ope d co n tai n ed ev i dence that requ ir ed a determ in ati on of fact. As noted ab ove, T hi s assignme n t of error l acks me ri t as it i s unsupported i n fact since it p r esumes that the Con ci se Stat e m e n t , 3/10/ 1 5, # 0 0 7 8, p. 3.

3. T hi s H o no rab l e Co u rt erred b y app l y in g an incorrect standard w h e n i t g r anted summary j u dgmen t in favo r o f P l ai nti ff by failin g t o ru l e i n favor of the n o n - mov in g party. " L astly , we w ill v i ew the r ecord i n th e l ight most favorabl e to the non -m o v in g party , and a ll do ubt s as to th e existence of a gen ui ne i ss u e of materi al fact mu st be r eso l ved agai n st the mov i ng p arty. " JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 12 5 8, 1268 ( P a. Superi or Co u rt , 2013). D efendant ' s thi r d ass i gnm en t of erro r is as fo llo ws :

3. Defendant

's Third Assignment of Error s u mmary j u dgme n t. D efenda n t's second ass i gnment of erro r l ac k s m erit. deemed a dmi ssio n s were suffic i ent grounds to enti tl e the p l ai n ti ff to g r an t of its moti o n for fo r ec l osur e i n its seco n d ame n ded comp l ai n t an d in i ts req u ests fo r admi s s i o n s . D efe n dant's the p l ain ti ffs bank officer. As noted above, the plainti ff set forth a prima facie case in mortgage court g r a n ted th e p l ainti ffs m otio n for summary j u dg m e n t in so l e re li ance u pon the affidav i t b y T hi s ass i gnme n t o f error l ack s meri t as i t is u n supported in fact s i nce i t p r es u mes that this Co n c i se Stateme n t, 3/10/ 1 5, # 00 7 8 , pp. 2-3.

tran sacti ons concern i ng this matte r s h o ul d have been d i sregarded as th e bas i s for a moti o n for s ummary judgment. See Nanty-G l o v. American S u rety C o., 309 P a. 236, 163 A.2d 523 ( 1 9 3 2).9 5

. T h is H o n o r able Court erred when it gran ted s um mary j u dgme n t i n favo r of Pl aintiff i n find i ng that P l ainti ff was a h o l der D efe nd ant's fifth assig n ment of erro r i s as follows:

5. Defendant's Fi

f th Assignment of E

rror fourth ass i g nm e n t of error l acks meri t. o wn ers hi p of a note and mo rt gage to s u pport the entry of s u mmary ju dgment. D efendant's defe n d an t in thi s appea l b ecau se it imp li es that s u ccession by merger is s u fficie n t proof to s h ow of JP Morgan Chase Bank NA. v . Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 ( P a.Super. 20 1 3) mi l itates again st th e underl y in g ass i gnme n ts. Here, in th e matter n ow on appeal , there are no assignme n ts. The case and note fo ll owing a success i o n and merge r , i f th ere we r e sufficie n t p r oof of th e c h ain of the 63 A.3d 12 5 8 (P a.S u pe r . 2013), it was taken as g iv en that the ap p e ll ee would own the mortgage ownersh i p b y ass i gnment of the note and m ortgage. I n JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

. v . Murray, A.3d 1258 (P a.Supe r. 20 1 3), the defe n dant c h a ll enged the evidence supporting the chai n of wo ul d i n cl u de the n ote an d m ortgage, necessarily. In JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

. v . Murray, 63 s h e admi tted that the substitute d plainti ff acquired the assets of th e original plain tiff, which matter n ow o n appeal a d mi tt ed that s h e gave the note and mortgage to the ori g i nal plai n tiff and T hi s assignme n t o f error lacks meri t because it ignores th e fact that the d efendant in the Co n cise Statement, 3/10/ 1 5, #00 78 , p. 3.

4

. This Honorab l e Court erred when it granted s u mmary judgment in favor of Plai nti ff by fai ling to cons i der the effects of the dec i s i on of th e P ennsylvania Superio r Court in JP Morgan Chase Bank NA. v . Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1 268 (Pa. Superior Court, 2 0 13), ho l d in g that a gen u ine iss u e of material fact to precl u de s u mmary j u dgme n t exists where Pl ain ti ff "has fail e d to estab li sh possess i on of the o ri ginal Note, i ndorse d in blank

. " D efendant's fourth assignment of error i s as fo ll ows:

4 . Def e ndant 's F our t h Ass ignm

e n t o f Err or1 0

to th is co u rt. the defendant's sixth assig n ment of e rr or raises matters that w h ere de hor s the record presente d obtai n e d and th ey we r e n o t file d as exh i b it s i n r esponse to the p l ain ti ffs motion

. According l y , M s . Mc D onne ll in any of these papers. T here is no me n ti o n of the documen t s s h e purported l y s ur- sur r ep l y on Septemb e r 18 , 20 1 4 , and a brief on September 18 , 20 1 4

. T he r e is n o menti on of th e p l ain ti ffs moti o n for s u mm ary judgme n t. De f endant fi l ed a response on August 1 , 20 14 , a D efendan t 's s i xth ass i gnme n t l acks merit as raising matte r s no t pres e nted in response to Concise Stateme n t , 3 / 1 0/ 1 5, # 0 0 78 , p p. 3-4

.

6. Th is H o n orab l e Court e rr ed w h e n i t gran ted summary judgme n t in favor o f Pl ain tiff w h e n i t permitted P lain tiff to argue as agent, as s u ccesso r b y me r ge r , an d as o wn e r of the Note w i thout p r oof of stan d i ng t o p ro ce e d in a n y of these ro l es . As a res ul t , th i s H o n o r ab l e Co u rt failed to re q u i re P l ain ti ff to pro v e standi n g in any cap a ci ty wh il e comme n c in g th is acti o n . In Plainti ffs res p onse to a form al i n q ui ry by D efendant's age n t, Marie Mc D o nn e ll , We ll s Far go p ro duced docu m e n ts th at clearl y a d mi t th at they are n ot the o wn er n o r th e ass i g n ee, bu t are at best a service r of an un de t ermi ned e n ti ty
. D efe n da nt 's s i xth ass i g nm e nt of error i s as fo ll ows :

6 . Defendant

's Sixth Assignment of Error m e ri t b ecause it i g n ores th ese a d mi ss i o n s. p lai nti ff acq u i r ed the assets of th e o ri g in al p l ainti ff

. Defe nd an t ' s fifth assignmen t of error lacks admi tte d th at s h e gave th e n ote an d mortgage to the origi n al plai nti ff an d s h e admi tted that the ass i g nmen t o f error l acks merit. T h e m atte r n o w o n appeal i s a case w h ere the defendant Thi s ass i g nm e n t of err o r l acks meri t fo r the same r eason that the defendant's fourth C o n c i se S t atement, 3/10/1 5 , # 0 078, p. 3.

i n d u e co u rse of th e n ote i n questi o n (th e "Note") o r th at Plain ti ff was ever in p h ys i ca l p ossessio n of th e N ote , o r eve r an ow n e r o f the Note, as Pl ai n ti ff prese n ted n o evide nc e o f those facts.1 1 

### 9
. T hi s H onorab le Co u rt e rr ed when it grante d s u m m ary ju dgment i n fa v o r of Pl ai n tiff by fai l in g to cons i der th e expe rt testi monies of D efe n dan t's n i nth ass ign me n t of erro r is as fo ll ows:

9. Defe n d a n t' s N i nth Ass i gnme

n t of Error the p l ai nti ff's motio n for s u mmary j u dgment, as addr essed prev i ously

. D efe n d an t's e i g h th ass i g nm ent lacks me ri t as r ai sing m atters n ot p r esented i n response to C o n c i se S tate me nt , 3/10/ 15 , #0 078 , p . 4.

8. T hi s H ono r abl e C ourt e rred w h e n it granted s u mmary j u dgment i n favo r o f Pl ainti ff by fai l i ng to cons i der th e r es p onses of Plainti ff to the inqu i rie s of D efendan t's age n t, M ari e Mc D o n ne ll , t o Pl ai n tiff o n be h a lf o f D e fe n d a n t as set fo rth in Federal l aw with r egard to the q uesti o n of n ote ownersh i p, i n esse n ce faili n g to co n s i der th e effect of Pl ainti ff's admiss i o n that neith er We ll s F argo no r W achov i a i s th e owner o r the ass i gnee o f th e No t e. D efe nd ant's e i g hth ass i gnment of erro r i s as follows:

8 . Defe n da nt 's E ig h t h Assi gnm

e n t of Error la c k s m erit. o n ap pea l th ere we re n o ass i gnme n ts o f the m ortgage. D efe n dant's seve n th ass i gnme n t of erro r 

### Chase Bank NA. v. Mur r

ay, 63 A.3d 1 2 5 8 (Pa.S u per . 2013) does n ot co ntro l. In th e matter n ow De fe n d an t's seve nth a ssignme n t o f error lacks merit for the sa m e r easo n that 

### JP Morgan Co nci se S t ate m e n t, 3/ 10/ 1 5, #0 0 78, p . 4.

7
. T hi s Ho n o rable C o urt err e d w h en it g ran ted s umm ary judgme nt in favo r of Pl ain ti ff by faili ng to co n s i der th e effect of th e h o l d in gs in th e case o f 

### Montgomery County, Pa
. ex re l. Bec ker v. MERSCOR P, Inc
. , No
. 11- cv - 69 6 8, 20 14 WL 5 5 0 8 0 5 (E. D. P a. Feb ru ary 1 2, 2 0 1 4), and it s ho l d i ng that e v ery transfer o f a m o rt gage is a conveyan ce an d n eeds t o b e reco r ded, wh i c h Pl ain ti ff h as fail ed to do so in thi s case. D efe nd an t' s s e ve n th ass i g nm e nt o f error i s as fo ll ows:

7 . D efendant's Seventh Ass i gnment of Error1 2

h ow the n o ti ces p rese n ted by the pl ai ntiff were at varia n ce with th e amo u nts she actua ll y owed this co urt th e noti ces that s h e actually r ece i ve d and she fail ed to present any ev i de n ce to show response to the p l ain ti ff's m oti o n for s u mmary judgment. F i rst, the defendan t fai led t o present to D efe n da n t's te n th ass i g nm e n t of error lacks merit as rai sing matters n ot p r ese n ted i n Co n cise S t atement, 3/ 1 0/ 1 5, # 00 7 8, pp . 4 -5

.

1 0. T h is Ho n orab le Co u rt e rr ed w h en i t gran t ed sum m ary j u dg m ent i n favor of Pl ai n ti ff b y failing to c o n s i der th at P l ain ti ff has tw i ce dece i ved the Court b y p r ese n tin g to the Co u rt fraudulent and defecti ve n o ti ces w i th i mproper amounts du e th at are n ot true an d co rr ect co p ies of the n otices actual l y received by D efendant. P lain tiff att e mp t s to hid e th e fact th at Plai nti ff h as tw i ce se n t noti ces with counselling age n cies in mu lti ple cou nti es ins t ea d of o nl y D e f endant ' s county. P ro pe r n otification i s r e q u ir ed i n P ennsylvan i a to commence a foreclosure ac ti on. 35 P .S. 1 68 0.40 3c. See Washington Mutual v . Carr, CC P Adams County (J u ly 5 , 20 06 ), pu bli s h ed i n Adams Co

. L egal Jo urn al , Vol. 4 9, No. 4, pp. 17

- 2 1 , J u ne 1 5 , 2007. Act 91 noti ce defective, fo r e cl osure comp l ai nt d i s mi ssed because n otice included a li st o f a ll co un sel in g age n c i es in Pennsylvan ia rath er than a list of agenc i es i n th e cou n try in whic h th e p roperty was located. D efe n dant ' s tenth assig n me n t of error i s as fo ll ows :

10. Defend

a nt 's Tenth As s ignment of Erro r motio n for s u m m ary

j ud gme n t. De fen dant ' s ninth assignme n t of e rr o r l acks m eri t. mi g h t b e r e fe rrin g to d epos i ti on testimony, l'l: o transcripts we r e fi l ed i n r esponse to th e p l aint iff s n ote d th at th ere was n o testim o n y i n thi s case, expert o r oth erwise. To th e exte n t the defe n dant r e spo n se t o the pl ai nti f

f' s motio n fo r summary judg m e n t , as addr essed p r evio u s l y. It should be D e f e nd an t ' s ninth ass i gnme n t o f e rr or l acks me ri t as rai s i ng matters not presented i n Co n c i se State m e n t, 3/10/ 1 5, # 00 7 8, p . 4.

William M c Caffrey, Marie Mc D onnell, and Amy Andersson. All thr ee experts h ave t estifi ed t o Pl ain ti ff n ot having th e stand in g to b rin g the acti o n as w e ll as to th e imp r oper amou nt s du e, the i r m eth od of b e in g calculated, and amo un ts a lr eady pai d.1 3

with a pooli n g an d serv i c in g ag r eeme nt , when th e bo rr owe r i s n e i th er 

### a party to nor a third party o r (2) r e q ues t a ju dic i al dete rmi nati o n that a loan ass i gnme n t is i nva l id du e to noncompliance h o l d in g th at a b orrowe r l acks s t an d in g to (1) cha ll enge the va li d i ty of a mortgage sec uritizati on E. D
. P a. 2012) ("[w ] hateve r th e context, i t ap p ears that a j udic i al co n se n sus has developed o f a contract to w hich she is n o t a party
. 

### Accord In re Walke r, 4 6 6 B
. R. 2 71 , 2 84 ( Bkrt cy . clear to th i s court how she c an raise as a d efe n se, i n the m att er n ow on appea l , the alleged breach #005 5 , 1 2 4

. 

### See also Sur-S u r R eply, 9/ 18 / 14 , # 006 1 , 1 7. In no way d i d the defe n dant mak e "mat e ri a ll y v i o l atin g [the ] terms of a poo lin g and se rvice agree m e n t (' P SA')." R esp o nse, 8 / 1 / 1 4 , ar g um e n t th at th e " [ p J lain ti ff o r i ts p r edecesso r " forfe i ted i ts rig h ts un d er the mo rt gage for D efe n dan t's el eve nth assignment of erro r lacks me rit as i t refe r s to the defe n dant ' s Co n c i se State m e n t , 3/1

. 0/ 1 5, #0 07 8, p. 5.

1 1

. Thi s Hon orab le C o u rt erred w h e n it granted summary j udgme nt in favor of Pl ain ti ff b y faili ng to co n sider th e su bo rd in atio n an d li e n pos i tion o f the s u b j ect loan. Defendant's e l eve n th assignm en t of e rr o r i s as fo ll ows:

11. Defendant's E

leventh Assignment of Error mortgage. D efendan t's ten th ass i gnme n t of error l acks m e ri t. th at th e noti ces s h e r ece i ved in any way confused her or oth erw i se cau sed her to d efau l t o n he r d efe n dant fail ed t o r es p o n d to the plain ti ffs m oti o n for s u mmary judgme n t w i th any evidence 

### Association v. West, C a se No. 1 2CA006 1 ( O H Ct. App

. , Di st 9 , Jan. 2 1 , 2014)

. In any event, th e ( settin g fo rth n o th i n g mo r e th an a bl ock qu ote from the O h io opinion 

### PNC Bank , National g r ou n d th at too m a n y c oun se lli ng age n cies were li sted. 

### Se e, Brief, 9/18/ 1 4, # 0062, pp. 1 3- 14 o n h er mortgag e. Seco nd , the defe n dant fail ed to cha ll e n ge the n o ti ces she received on the1 4

D efe n dant's thi rtee n th assig nm e n t of erro r is as fo ll ows:

13. Defendant's Thirteenth A s signment of Error erro r l acks m e ri t. h a [ d] possessio n of th e ori g inal No t e." 10 0 A.3d at 62 1

. D efe n dant's twe l fth ass i gnme n t of s ummary j u dgme n t b ecau se i t was n ot ev i de n c e that " F annie Mae (rath er than [the p l ainti ff]) th e (m ortgago r s' ] loan." 1 00 A. 3d at 621. T h at was i nsu ffi c i e n t to pre clu de the entry of materi al fact becau s e two doc um e n ts "desc ri be[d ] Fannie Mae as th e ' in vesto r ' and 'owner' of ( P a. Su p e r. 20 14 ). In 

### Powell, the mortgago r s argue d th at they had rai sed a genu in e iss u e of F annie M ae l ack e d me rit as d i d the appe ll ees in 

### PHH Mortg. Corp
. v. Powell, 1 00 A.3d 6 11 ac qu ire d the assets o f th e o ri g in a l p l ain tiff. In thi s regard, th e defe n dan t's ar gu me n t regard in g wer e any assignme n ts in th i s case, just as i t i g n o r es the d e f endant's admi ss i o n th at th e p l ainti ff Defen d ant 's twe l fth assig nmen t of e rror lacks merit as i t presumes, fa l se l y, that there Conc i s e State men t, 3/ 1 0/15, #00 7 8, p. 5.

1 2

. T hi s H onorab le Court erred w h en i t granted s u mmary judgme n t i n favor of P lai n tiff b y failin g to co n s i der Fe d e r al Nati o n a l Mortgage Associati o n 's ( "Fannie Mae") cl aim of ow n e r sh ip of th e l oan al o n g w i th the suppo rti n g expert t e sti mo n y to thi s fact as we ll as Pl ain ti ff's own admissio n of l ack of owne r s hi p. Pa 1 14 1- 1 1 50 stat es th at Pl ai ntiff in a m ortgage fo r ec l os ure mu st set forth parties to the mortgage, any ass i g nm e n ts, and a s t at e m e n t of the place of r ecord of the mortgag e an d ass i gnme nt s. 

### Wells Fargo v. Janosick, CCP A ll eg h eny County (Marc h 23, 200 9 ). D efendant's t we l fth ass i g n me n t of error i s as fo ll ows:

12 . Defendant

' s Twelfth A s signment of Error e le ve n th ass i gnm en t of erro r lacks me rit. b en efic i ary o f th e sec uriti zatio n agreement, i

. e ., the PSA. ") ( citati o n omitte d ). Defendant's15

Co n c i se Stateme n t, 3/ 1 0/15, #0078, p. 6.

14. T hi s H onorab l e Court erred when it perm i tted the acti on to mo v e forward to summary j udgment i n favo r of P lainti ff despi t e the num ero u s acts of fraud perpe tu ated by the Pl ai n ti ff p rio r t o and duri ng this a c ti o n . T hi s H o n o r ab l e Court has been provided with proof of fr au d in cl u d in g, but not li mi ted to, th e fabri cati on of l oan ap p li cati o n informati on benefitting the [P] l ai n tiff, exerc i se of an ill egal ri g h t to offse t , i[n

] proper lien p os itio n , l ack o f reco r dation, and fraud i n th e in ducement thr ough p redatory practi ces. D efe ndan t's fourteenth assignme n t of erro r is as follows:

14. Def e ndant's Fourteenth As signment of E rror ju dgme n t. D efe n dant's th i rtee n th assignment o f error l acks merit. forgery" wo ul d be insuf

fici e n t to r aise a gen u i n e iss u e of material fact precl u di n g summary In an y e ve nt, th e defend an t tacitl y admi ts that th e p l ai ntiff possesses th e no t e, an d "poss i bly

. a imm ed i at e l y after" the m atter was o r ally argued and th e r eby submitted to this court for decision. thi rtee n th ass i gnment of error th at the groun d s relied u pon did not exist prio r to "almos t response to the p l ai n ti ff's moti on fo r s u mmary j u dgment. D efe n dan t acknow l edges i n h er D efe n d an t's thi rtee n th ass i gnme nt of error lacks meri t as rai s in g matte r s n ot prese n ted in Conc i se S t ate m e n t, 3/1 0/ 1 5, #00 7 8, p. 5

.

13. This Hono r abl e Court erred w h e n i t granted s u mmary judgme n t in favo r of Pl ain tiff by faili ng t o cons i der that the Note was n ever attached to a pleading no r seen by D efe nd ant nor b y any court until thi s year and that th e s i gnatur e is poss i b l y a forgery. A n atio n a l prac tice by We ll s Fargo of fabricatin g s u c h docume n ts for li ti g atio n was ru l ed u pon i n Cynthia Carrsow

- Franklin v. Wells 

### Fargo, Case No
. 1 0-20010 ( RD D) Chap t er 13 Entered 1/29/20 1 5 (Un it ed S t ates B ankrup t cy Court, Eastern District of New Yo rk) by Ju dge D rain of Whi t e P l ains, New Yo rk , al most immediately after th e ora l argume n ts in th is case. Defe n dant h as presen t e d evidence of th e fab ri cati on in structi ons for attorneys disc u ssed by Judge Dr ai n in a l e n gth y o p inio n .1 6

Co n cise State m ent, 3/10/ 1 5, #0078, p. 6.

1 6. Th i s Honorab l e Co u rt erred when i t granted summary j u d g m e n t in favor of Pl ain tiff, becau se it h as pres u med without ev i dence that Pl aintiff has been i njured whe n expert testimony has de cl ared that the l oan was n ot funded by P lai n tiff. D e fen da n t's sixtee n th assignment of error i s as fo ll ows:

16 . Defendant's Sixteenth Assignmen t of Error r es p o n se to the p l aintiffs motion for su m mary judgment. D efe n dant's fifteenth ass i g nm e n t of error l ac k s merit as rai s i ng matters not p r ese n ted in Co n cise Stateme n t, 3/ 1 0/15, #0078, p. 6.

15. T his H onorab l e Court erred whe n i t granted summary judg m en t i n favor of P laintiff by hono ring the fraud bars for the Tru th in Len di ng Ac t (TILA) and the Real Estate S e ttleme n t P rocedures Act (RES P

A) since both include many specific laws a n d many have b een amende d w i th th e new law of which Plai ntiff is still in vio l atio n . Defe n dant's age n t, Marie McDonne ll , has made i n q ui ries th at have go n e una n swered to th i s day on behal f of D efe n dan t in v i o l ati on o f Federa l l aw. Answers would e nl ighte n thi s Ho n o r ab l e Court i f provided since they speak directly to ownersh i p of th e Note an d stand i ng to bri n g the action. D efendant's fi fteenth ass i gnme n t of error i s as fo ll ows:

15. Defendant's Fifteenth Assignment of Error of e rr or l acks merit. defe n dant n ow makes by her fo urt ee n th assignment of erro r . D efendant's fourteenth assig nm ent i n formation was fabricate d , that the loan made was p r edatory, or any other of th e assertions the comp e t e nt evidence to s u pport the assertions now made on appeal th at l oan application defendan t pr ese n te d to this co u rt in oppos i tion to the p l aintiffs motion fo r summary j u dgment Defendant's fourteenth assignment of error lacks merit. It presumes , falsely, that the17 18. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment i n favor of Plainti ff in its interp r etation and/or misinterpretation of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted under Pennsylvania law, and its understanding of conveyances and negotiab l e instruments, if any are applicable in this matter, as well as i ts understanding of ass i gnments and reco r dation laws relating to sec u ri tized mortgage notes. Defendant's e i ghteenth assignment of error is as follows:

18 . D ef end a nt 's E ight ee nth Ass ignm

e nt of Err

o r seve n teenth assignment of error lacks merit. mo rt gagee and the defendant filed an answer admi tting 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 s u ccessor-in-interest to the mortgagee. The matter now on appeal is Pa. D. & C.4 1 h 136 was one where the plaintiff was g i ven the opportunity to amend the complaint of Washington Mutual v . Carr, CCP Adams County (2007), 2006 WL 2568287 (Pa.Com

. Pl.), 77 Defendan t's seventeenth assignment of erro r lacks merit as not based in fact. The case Concise Statement, 3/10/15, #0078 , p . 6
.

1 7. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Plai ntiff by permitting the Plai ntiff 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), 2 0 06 W L 2568287 (Pa.Com.Pl.), 77 Pa
. D
. & C.4 1 h 136. Because Plai ntiff failed to allege facts establishing the relationship between it and the original mortgagee in i ts mortgage-foreclosure complai nt, 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. D e f e nd a nt 's Seve nt ee n t h Ass ign me n t of Er r o r response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Defendant's sixteenth assignment of error lacks meri t as raising matters not presented in1 8

p l aintiff. R ather , th e defe n dant fil ed an answer and new matter o n Septembe r 1 0 , 20 1 0. prelimin ary objecti o n s to th e seco n d ame nd ed complain t fi l ed on May 13 , 2 010 by the original D e f e n dant ' s t w enti eth ass i gnment of erro r lacks me rit as the defendant did not fi l e Co n c i se State m e n t, 3/10/15, #00 7 8 , p. 7
.

20

. Thi s H o n o r able Court erred w h en i t granted summary j udg m e n t i n favor of Pl ain ti ff w h e n it failed to co n side r th at the No t e was not attac h ed to the p l eadings. Since thi s is a s u it on a co n tra c t , the contract mu st be atta c hed p u rs u ant to Pennsy l van i a Rul e of C i v il Pr ocedure 1 01 9
. D efendan t 's t we n tieth ass i gnme n t o f error is as fo ll ows:

20. D e fendant's

Twentieth A s signment of Er ror plai n tif fs successo r by m e r ger. Defen d ant's ni netee n th ass i g nm e n t of error l acks m eri t. pl ain ti ff p ur chased th e assets of the p l aintiff and it fo ll owed that th e plaintiff is the origina l T hi s is a case w h e r e the origi n al p l ai n ti ff was th e mortgagee and the defe n da n t a dm itted th at the D efe n dant's n i neteenth assignment o f err or lacks merit for reasons a d dressed p r ev i o u s l y . Concise Stat e m en t , 3/ 1 0/ 1 5, #00 7 8, p. 7.

19. T hi s H onorab l e Co u rt erred w h en it grante d summary j udgme nt i n favor of P lain ti ff whe n it fail ed to consider the l ac k of Pl ain tiff's proof of establi s h ing a pro p er chain of title in the histo ry o f th e in stru ments i n question. Defendant's ni n eteen th ass i gnme n t of error i s as follow s :

19 . Defendant's Nineteenth A s signment of E rror suffic i e n t s p ec i fic i ty to pe rmit meaningfu l d i scussion

. D efendant's e i ghteenth assig nme nt o f error lacks merit as i ts ge n eric natu re lacks Co nci se Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p

. 7
.19 R. STE PH ~N B ARRETT, J. 

### ~ . / ~- - ~ BY T HE COURT

: order dated J anuary 15, 2015, entered of record on January 16 , 2015, shou l d be affirmed

. Accord i ngly, for the reasons set forth above , it is respectfully suggested that this court's III. CONC

LUSIO N error, above. Defendant's twenty
- first assignment o f error l acks merit. addr essed earlie r i n this opinion, in the discussion of the defendant's eleventh assignment of #0055, 124. See al so Sur-Sur R ep l y, 9/18/14, # 0061, 17. It l acks merit for the same reasons "material l y violating [ the] terms of a pooling and service agreement (' P SA ' )." Response, 8 / 1 / 14, argument that the " [ p ]l ai ntiff or its predecessor " forfeited its rights under the mortgage for Defendant's twenty
- first assignment o f error l acks merit as it refers to the defendant ' s Conc i se Statement, 3/10/15, #0078, p. 7.

21. This Honorable Court erred when it granted summary judgment i n favor of P l aintiff when it failed to recognize the possibility th at a Pooling and Servic i ng Agreement of the Trust that has been identified as including the instrument in question would p l ay a significant ro l e in determin i ng the stand i ng of this acti on and that Courts h ave recogn i zed a homeowner ' s s t anding in matters relating to securiti z ed l oans that have been poo l ed into a real estate mortgage investment conduit governed by a pooling and serv i cing agreement. Defendant ' s twenty-first assignment of error isas follows: 21 . D efe nd

an t's Twen ty-F ir st A s sig nm

e n t o f Erro r for appellate review. Defendant's twentieth assignment of error therefore raises an i s sue that has not been preserved

### 20

Copies m ailed o n 

### 1j 

# /_,J /, 

# r-;;: E dwar d D
. C onw a ~ t o : Chris tin e L. Gr aham, Es qu i r e M anric o A ~liti , Jr Esquire