J-S32031-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CF SBC UST 3, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSE CEDENO AND ALI S. SHAMAN 

J.A.C.C. EL BEY

APPEAL OF JOSE CEDENO

 No. 3054 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order August 25, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division

at No(s): March Term, 2012 No. 02454

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED MAY 24, 2017

Appellant Jose Cedeno appeals from an order entered in the 

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to strike the 

judgment entered in this mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm.

The history of this case is as follows. Appellant was the owner of real 

property at 3101-03 Frankford Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The 

property was mortgaged to Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company. On March 

21, 2012, Goldman Sachs filed an in rem mortgage foreclosure action 

against Appellant in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. 

Appellant filed preliminary objections to the complaint, which were denied, 

and a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on July 10, 2012. 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S32031-17

- 2 -

Appellant appealed the denial of the motion for reconsideration to this Court, 

which quashed the appeal.

Appellant filed an answer to the complaint with new matter. Goldman 

Sachs first moved for judgment on the pleadings and then for summary 

judgment, but the trial court denied both motions. During these motion 

proceedings, Goldman Sachs assigned the mortgage to Appellee, CF SBC 

UST 3, LLC, and Appellee substituted itself for Goldman Sachs as the 

plaintiff. 

The case proceeded to a two-day non-jury trial. Appellee introduced 

into evidence, inter alia, certified copies of the assignment of the subject 

mortgage from Goldman Sachs to Appellee. On March 11, 2014, the trial 

court entered a verdict in favor of Appellee in the amount of $95,191.84. 

On March 25, 2014, Appellee filed a praecipe for entry of judgment on the 

verdict. On April 7, 2014, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which 

the court denied on April 9, 2014. Appellant appealed to the Superior Court 

on April 23, 2014, but this Court quashed the appeal due to Appellant's 

failure to file post-trial motions. 

Appellant filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appellee filed a 

motion seeking relief from the automatic stay, which the Bankruptcy Court 

granted on September 17, 2014. 
J-S32031-17

- 3 -

On November 6, 2014, Appellee purchased the mortgaged property at 

a sheriff’s sale for a prevailing bid of $11,500.00. On November 24, 2014, 

Appellant filed a motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale. On March 12, 2015, 

following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant appealed to 

this Court, which affirmed on December 5, 2015 at 1117 EDA 2015. 

On July 6, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to strike the judgment in the 

mortgage foreclosure action as void. On August 25, 2016, the trial court 

denied the motion to strike. This timely appeal followed. Without ordering 

Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, the trial court has filed a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises the following issues in this appeal:

1. Whether the [trial] [c]ourt erred in denying said 

[m]otion [to strike judgment] when the facts upon which 

the relief requested [are] clear and unequivocal[?]

2. Whether the issue of the effect of Goldman Sachs[’] 

[a]ssignment of the [m]ortgage prior to the filing of the 

[f]oreclosure [s]uit has been properly addressed in this or 

another court[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

Appellant’s position boils down to one argument: the trial court erred 

in denying the motion to strike the judgment,1 because Goldman Sachs was 

not the holder, owner or other party entitled to foreclose on the mortgage on 

 

1

“A petition to strike a judgment may be granted only for a fatal defect or 

irregularity appearing on the face of the record.” Resolution Trust Corp. 

v. Copley Qu-Wayne Assocs, 683 A.2d 269, 273 (Pa. 1996) (citations 

omitted).
J-S32031-17

- 4 -

the date it commenced this mortgage foreclosure action, rendering the 

judgment against Appellant null and void. The law of the case doctrine 

precludes Appellant from obtaining relief, because this Court ruled against 

Appellant on this issue in his prior appeal at 1117 EDA 2015. 

The law of the case doctrine is 

a family of rules which embody the concept that a court 

involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not 

reopen questions decided by another judge of that same 

court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the 

matter. Among the related but distinct rules which make 

up the law of the case doctrine are that: (1) upon remand 

for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the 

resolution of a legal question previously decided by the 

appellate court in the matter; (2) upon a second appeal, 

an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal 

question previously decided by the same appellate court; 

and (3) upon transfer of a matter between trial judges of 

coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court may not 

alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided 

by the transferor trial court.

Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa. 1995) (citations 

omitted). This general prohibition, however, is not absolute. Departure 

from the rule is permissible in “exceptional circumstances such as where 

there has been a change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the 

facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior 

holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if 

followed.” Id. at 1332 (citations omitted).
J-S32031-17

- 5 -

In his previous appeal at 1117 EDA 2015, a panel of this Court ruled 

against Appellant on the very issue that he attempts to raise in the present 

appeal. The previous panel stated:

[Appellant] claims that the trial court erred in failing to 

consider the fact that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, ab 

initio, as Goldman Sachs was not in possession of the 

subject note and mortgage at the time of filing the 

foreclosure action. Contrary to [Appellant’s] claim, the trial 

court did consider this jurisdictional question. The court 

stated:

In the instant matter, Goldman Sachs satisfied the 

requisite elements of Pa.R.C.P. 1147(a) for an action 

in mortgage foreclosure and a copy of the mortgage 

was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. 

Additionally, any issues of service of the notice of the 

Sheriff’s sale are unsupported by the record, as a 

representative of [Appellant] was present on the day 

of the sale. Further, all issues pertaining to the 

assignments of the mortgage were decided during 

the trial before the Honorable M. Teresa Sarmina 

and, thus, any challenges to Goldman Sachs’ 

possession of the note and mortgage were not 

property raised before this Court in the instant 

Motion to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale.

We find no error or abuse of discretion . . . and we affirm 

the trial court’s order denying [Appellant’s] motion to set 

aside sheriff’s sale. 

Goldman Sachs, CF SBC UST 3, LLC v. Cedeno, 1117 EDA 2015 

(unpublished memorandum at 6) (Pa. Super. Dec. 4, 2015). 

Appellant’s present appeal is an attempt to re-litigate whether the 

judgment against him should be stricken due to Goldman Sachs’ alleged lack 

of possession of the note and mortgage. Because he has already raised this 

issue without success, the law of the case doctrine precludes him from re-
J-S32031-17

- 6 -

raising it. Moreover, his argument does not fall within any exception to the 

law of the case doctrine, such as an intervening change in the law, a 

substantial change in the facts, or a prior ruling that was clearly erroneous 

that would create a manifest injustice if followed. See Starr, 664 A.2d at 

1332. 

For these reasons, the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to 

strike the judgment.

Order affirmed. Appellee’s motion to quash denied as moot.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/24/2017