J
- A03034
- 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HSBC BANK USA, NATIO NAL ASSOC AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLD ERS OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DEUTCHE ALT
- A SECURITIES MORTGAG E LOAN TRUST SERIES 2007
- ARI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v. PATRICK CARNEY Appellant No. 877 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment Entered May 5 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Civil Division at No(s): 10
- 010108

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED APRIL 05, 2016 Appellant, Patrick Carney, appeals pro se from the judgment entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of Appellee, HSBC Bank, in this mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural hi story of this case. We add Appellant timely filed post

trial motions pro se on March 6, 2015, which the court denied on March 11, 2015. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 23, 2015. 1 The

____________________________________________ 1 Ordinarily, an appeal properly lies from the entry of judgment, not from the order denying post

- trial motions. See generally Johnston the Florist, (Footnote Continued Next P age)J
- A03034
- 16

- 2
-

court ordered Appellant on March 25, 2015, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely filed his Rule 1925(b) statement pro se on April 13, 2015. On May 5, 2015, the court entered judgment in favor of Appellee. Thereafter, on August 3, 20 15, this Court quashed Appellant’s separate appeal at docket No. 838 EDA 2015 without prejudice to Appellant to raise any issues pertaining to the foreclosure action within the context of the current appeal at docket No. 877 EDA 2015. Appellant raises t he following issues for our review: DID THE [TRIAL] COUR T COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DID NOT CONS IDER THE CUMULATIVE EFFEC T OF THE NUMEROUS INTENTIONAL DECEITS AND MISREPRESENTATIO NS OF [APPELLEE] AND ITS V ARIOUS COUNSELS, THE R EBY DEPRIVING THE [TRIAL ] COURT OF JURISDICT ION TO HEAR THE MATTER WHEN APPELLEE DID NOT HAV E STANDING TO INVOKE T HE COURT’S JURISDICT ION AND DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS?

(Footnote Continued)

_______________________ Inc. v. TEDCO Constr. Corp. , 657 A.2d 511, 516 (Pa.Super. 1995) ( en banc ). Nevertheless, a final judgment entered during pendency of an appeal is sufficient to perfect appellate jurisdiction. Drum v. Shaull Equipment and Supply, Co. , 787 A.2d 1050 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied , 569 Pa. 693, 803 A.2d 735 (2002). Here, Appe llant filed a pro se notice of appeal prematurely on March 23, 2015, prior to the entry of judgment. The court entered final judgment on May 5, 2015. Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal relates forward to May 5, 2015, the date judgment was entered. See P a.R.A.P. 905(a) (stating notice of appeal filed after court’s determination but before entry of appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on day of entry). Hence, there are no procedural/jurisdictional impediments to our review.J
- A03034
- 16

- 3
- DID THE [TRIAL] COUR T MAKE AN ERROR IN F ACT AND AN ERROR OF LAW IN FA ILING TO UPHOLD PA.R.C.P. 2002 BY IG NORING GOVERNMENT
CERTIFIED AND AUTHEN TICATED EVIDENCE, TH AT THE TRIAL COURT ADMI TTED, WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES APPELLEE LACKED STANDING AND WAS THEREFORE NOT A REAL PARTY IN INTERE ST? DID THE [TRIAL] COUR T MAKE AN E RROR IN FACT AND AN ERROR IN LAW WHEN [MS. ROMANO] ROBO
- SIGNED APPELLANT’S A SSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE? DID THE [TRIAL] COUR T ABUSE ITS DISCRETI ON AND SHOW BIAS IN FAV OR OF APPELLEE, THER EBY DEPRIVING APPELLANT HIS RIGHT OF DUE PRO CESS TO A FAIR AND EQUITA BLE TRIAL? (Appellant’s Brief at 3

- 4). As a preliminary matter, we note Appellant proceeds in this appeal pro
se . While this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. Strawn v. Strawn , 664 A.2d 129 (Pa.Super. 1995). See also Cole v. Czegan , 722 A .2d 686, 687 (Pa.Super. 1998) (stating pro se status does not entitle appellant to any particular advantage because appellant lacks legal training). “[A]ppellant has a duty to file a comprehensible brief and to raise and develop properly his appellate iss ues.” Cole, supra . Accordingly,

a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Court. Jones v. Rudenstein , 585 A.2d 520 (Pa.Super. 1991), appeal denied , 529 Pa. 634, 600 A.2d 954 (1991). This Court may qu ash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conformJ
- A03034
- 16

- 4
-

substantially to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Laird v. Ely & Bernard , 528 A.2d 1379 (Pa.Super. 1987), appeal denied , 520 Pa. 576, 549 A.2d 136 (1988). I nstantly, Appellant’s brief complies in form with most of the pertinent rules of Pennsylvania’s appellate procedure. Nevertheless, Appellant’s brief fails to provide us with an adequate argument section, pursuant to the applicable ru les, which require the argument section to contain a discussion of Appellant’s contentions on appeal plus legal arguments and citations supporting those contentions. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Here, Appellant’s fourth issue challenges the trial court’s bias, but contains no citations to authority. See Dalrymple v. Kilishek , 920 A.2d 1275 (Pa.Super. 2007) (stating failure to support argument with pertinent authority results in waiver on appeal). Instead, this issue consists of a string of contentions and ref erences to Appellant’s version of the facts. Thus, Appellant’s fourth issue is waived. See id. A fter a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well

- reasoned opinion of the Honorable G. Michael Green, we co nclude Appellant’s remaining issues merit no relief. The trial court’s opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of these questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 8, 2015, at 9

- 15) (finding: (1) - (3) as security for Note, App ellant executed Mortgage in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), acting solely asJ
- A03034
- 16

- 5
-

nominee for American Brokers Conduit (“ABC”), and its successors and assigns; Mortgage specifically lists MERS as mortgagee and nominee for Lende r, ABC; thus, MERS may execute Mortgage as nominee for Lender, ABC; MERS granted signing authority to Ms. Romano, MERS’ certifying officer, to execute Assignment of Mortgage (“AOM”); therefore, MERS acted within its specific authority to execute AOM to App ellee, and Ms. Romano had express authority to execute AOM with Recorder of Deeds; Appellant is not third

- party beneficiary of AOM, he is not party to AOM, and he did not sign AOM; thus, Appellant lacks standing to challenge validity of transfer and assign ment of Note and Mortgage to Appellee; Appellee is owner and holder of Mortgage and Note; Appellant’s failure to make monthly payments constituted default under Mortgage and Note; Appellee issued proper pre

foreclosure notifications, and Appellant failed t o cure default; Note was endorsed by Lender, ABC, and made payable in blank; Appellee holds and possesses original Note, which it produced at trial). The record supports the trial court’s decision; therefore, we have no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Judgment affirmed.J
- A03034
- 16

- 6
-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/5/20161 Said Motion was considered as a Motion for Post-Trial Relief pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 227.1.
2 The companion case of HSBC Bank, USA, National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of the Certificates Issued by Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2007-ARl v. Patrick T. Carney, 2010

- 008543 was tried in conjunction with the instant matter. Therein, Appellant neglects to specifically enumerate the errors complained of on Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal was filed on April 13, 2015. 2 of Knowledge and Lack of Understanding of the Securitization Process. 1 Appellant's Order denying a Motion to Vacate Judgment Based on Judicial Bias and Judge's Lack Appellant, Patrick T. Carney, filed the instant appeal following a (Y)C\r v \.\ 1\, 2015 FILED: 

### M~y s, Jo\5

_ GREEN, J. OPINION Elizabeth Gallard, Esquire Patrick T. 

### Carney,pro se PATRICK T. CARNEY

v. NO. 2010-010108 HSBC BANK, USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST SERIES 2007-ARl IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW Circulated 03/22/2016 10:47 AM2

10. The Trial Court "showed bias in protecting and shielding witnesses from Defendant's examination in violation of his federal civil right to due process"; 9. Appellee should not have been permitted to file non-party verifications; 8. The assignment of the Mortgage is a "fabricated document" and MERs lacked the authorization to transfer either the Mortgage or the Note; 7. The assignment of the Mortgage is void ab initio; 6. "The manufactured assignment of mortgage
... is a fabricated document that had no authority to assign ownership interest of said mortgage becauseMortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (:MERS-as nominee for ABCassignor) was not the owner of the subject mortgage and was only the nominee for ABC, an alleged New York Corporation, which was a non-existent Corporation. IvIERS, never has written instruction, nor written authorization to transfer the Mortgage or the Note."; 5. Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that 

### it is the owner of the Note or that it is a holder in due course; 4. The blank indorsement found in the Note is ineffective; 3. The Trial Court failed to find that American Brokers Conduit was a legal corporation or that it was properly licensed to operate as a licensed lender; 2. Both the Mortgage and the Note are void ab initio; 1. HSBC Bank, USA, National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of the Certificates Issued by Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2007-ARl (hereinafter "HSBC" or Appellee) is not a real party in interest as "it did not have standing to bring this wrongful foreclosure action" and "that no securitization has been proven to have ever taken place"; raises the following issues for appellate review: appeal over the course of his sixteen (16) page statement. Nevertheless, Appellant3 3 HSBC served discovery, including Requests for Admission and Defendant failed and/or refused to respond. (P-13). Given Defendant's failure to respond to the Requests for Admission, said Requests were deemed admitted pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4014. (June 23, 2014 Order). 

### (P-1 ). 2007-ARl (hereinafter "HSBC" or Appellee) is currently in possession of the Note. the Certificates Issued by Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust Series Appellant, HSBC Bank, USA, National Association, as Trustee for the Holders of (P-1). ABC indorsed the Note and made it payable in blank, without recourse. (P-1). Conduit, which states: "PAY TO THE ORDER OF

__ WITHOUT RECOURSE". indorsement signed by Ryan Criscione, as Assistant Secretary of American Brokers P-133; 

## ,r,r 3-4, N.T. 10/27/14, p. 41). The last page of the Note contains an undated $74,175.00 in favor of lender, American Brokers Conduit (hereinafter "ABC"). (P-1; adjustable rate promissory note (hereinafter "Note") in the principal sum of On November 16, 2006, Appeliant, Patrick T. Carney, executed a thirty-year 13. The Trial Court erred by "failing to find that fraud was established in a clear and convincing manner." 12. The Trial Court "showed bias and a lack of adherence to the rules of evidence in allowing hearsay documents of a generic nature

.... " 11. The Trial Court "showed bias when [the Trial Court] refused Defendant access to the notary witness's logbook";4 5 Based upon Mr. Camey's testimony, this Court assumes he was the sole shareholder of Golden Abstract Services, Inc., at all times relevant to this civil action. 4 At trial, Mr. Camey testified that he worked with ABC "often." (N.T. 10/27/14, p. 14). 

### Services, Inc., which did business as Golden Abstract Services. (P-39, N.T. 1027/14, transactions. 4 

### Appellant was also the owner 5 

### and President of Golden Abstract Services had used American Brokers Conduit as Lender in prior real estate underlying transaction. (N.T. 08/04/14, p. 25). Appellant through Golden Mortgage Mortgage Services selected American Brokers Conduit to serve as the Lender in the Golden Mortgage Services. (P-39, N.T. 10/27/14, p. 9). Appellant through Golden owner and President of Golden Mortgage Services, Inc., which did business as At the time of the execution of the Note and Mortgage, Appellant was the (P-2). Delaware County on December 14, 2006 in Mortgage Book No. 003981, Page 1879. ("Property"). The Mortgage was recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of property located at 3921 Gideon Road, Brookhaven, Pennsylvania 19015 (P-2; P-13; 

## ,r,r 1-2, N.T. 10/27/14, p.38). The Property subject to the Mortgage is real the indebtedness of the Note. l\1ERS is the identified mortgagee in the Mortgage

. nominee for ABC, the Lender, and Lender's successors and assigns, which secured of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., ("MERS"), as mortgagee, as On November 16, 2006, Appellant executed a mortgage ("Mortgage") in favor

### Appellant did not seek Act 6/91 assistance within the applicable time periods 5 

### the nature of the foreclosure proceedings and how to take action to avoid foreclosure. (P-4). The Act 6/91 Notice explained to Appellant that his Mortgage was in default, 401(c) ("Act 6/91 Notice") due to the failure to make monthly mortgage payments. Mortgage Assistance, pursuant to Act 91 of 1983, as amended in 1998, 35 P.S.§1680, forth in Act 6 of 1974, 41 P.S. §403(a) and a Notice of Homeowners' Emergency Notice of Intention to Foreclosure, and Notice of Intent to accelerate the debt, as set mail and regular mail, at both the Property's address and his last known address, On or about June 21, 2010, counsel for HSBC sent Appellant, via certified immediately

. (P-1, 17(C); P-2, 

## ,r 22; P-3, 1 10). written notice of default which is left uncured, then the entire debt is collectible, upon default of such monthly payments for a period of one (1) month and upon on the date it is due is a default. (P-1, 1 7(B)). The Note and Mortgage provide that The Note provides that failure to pay the full amount of each monthly payment for a loan modification. (P-13; 18). mortgage payment was tendered by Appellant. (P-13; ~ 7). Appellant did not apply HSBC, purchased the Note in January 2007. On September 1, 2009, the last Appellant's mortgage loan was fully funded. (N.T. 08/04/14, p. 25). Appellee, Conduit at the closing of the loan. (P-20, N.T. 10/27/14, pp.10-11). p. 10). Golden Abstract Services acted as the settlement agent for American Brokers6 The total disbursements in exhibit P

- 36 are shown as "escrow advance" on exhibit P-35. 6 provided under the Homeowners' Emergency Assistance Act with respect to the Mortgage at issue

. (P-13; 1 11). Appellant received the Act 6/91 Notice at l east thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of this foreclosure proceeding. See Exhibit C to P-13. (P-13; 113). Despite this written notice, Appellant failed to make any payments that were due and owing. (P-13, 118). On or about July 30, 2010, HSBC commenced the instant mortgage foreclosure action against the Appellant. Appellant is the mortgagor and real owner of the Property. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is the current servicer of the mortgage loan. The total amount alleged and owing in the Complaint totaled $93,819.62. (P-13, 116). The Mortgage provides that the borrower pay taxes and property insurance premiums on the Property. (P-2, 

## ,r,r 3, 4, 5). The Mortgage also provides that the Lender may obtain insurance coverage at Lender's option and at the borrower's expense. (P-2, 

## ,r,r 5, 9). Appellant did not pay taxes or homeowners insurance owed

. on the Property. ' The loan servicer(s) on behalf of Plaintiff paid the taxes and property insurance premiums on the Property totaling $13,562.42 ("escrow advance") which are set forth in detail at Exhibit P-36. (P-36; P-2, 

## ,r 9). 67

Pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage and Note, the total amount due is accruing interest at the rate of $5.33 per day. (P-35). 

### $ 74,175.00 

### $ 16,686.44 

### $ 251.16 

### $ 1 , 093.70 

### $ 13,562.42 $105,769.14 TOTAL At trial, Appellee produced the original Note, made it available for inspection, and Appellant inspected the original Note and confirmed that he sig n ed the original Note. (N.T. 10/15/14, pp.224, 230-233, N.T. 10 /27 / 14, p.41.) Appellee's attorney currently has possession of the original Note. Judith Romano, Assistant Secretary and Vice President of MERS testified at trial. Ms. Romano had authority to execute an assignment of mortgage on behalf of MERS. (P-16). The Assignment of Mortgage dated June 15, was recorded on July 7, 2010, in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Delaware County in Record Book 4766, Page 2370. (P-3).
As of October 15, 2014, HSBC alleged the total amount due under the terms of the Mortgage and Note were as follows: Principal Balance Interest from 8/1/2009 through 10/15/2014 Cumulative Late Charges Recoverable Balance Escrow Advance8 7 The decision to permit Appellant to present evidence in support of this counterclaim for fraud occurred in a pre-trial conference that was placed on the record. (N.T., 10/15/14, pp.148-153, 2010- 008543, 2010-010108). 

### A.2d 828, 831 (Pa. 1950), overruled in part on other grounds by 

### Guy v . Liederbach, to enforce rights arising under the claims. See 

### Spires v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 70 claim upon which suit is brought and to control the prosecution of the action brought standing to maintain an action, is the person who has the power to discharge the party in interest

.... " Pa.R.C.P. 2002(a). A 'real party in interest,' as required to have otherwise provided

. . . all actions shall be prosecuted by and in the name of the real Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2002(a) provides that "[e]xcept as 

## REAL PARTY IN INTEREST sustained. supporting a theory of a fraud and failed to prove any harm, injury, or damages he Patrick T. Carney. Appellant did not through competent evidence prove concise facts property. On the counterclaim, judgment was entered in favor of HSBC, and against charges collectible under the mortgage, for foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged Carney, in the amount of $105,769.14 together with interest and other costs and arguments, an in rem 

### judgment was entered in favor of HSBC, and against Patrick T. counterclaim. 7 

### Following trial, a review of post-trial submissions and closing At trial, Appellant was granted leave to pursue and prove a theory of fraud as a

### assigns. (P-2 at p.1 ). As such, MERS acted within its specific authority by executing 9 

### MERS was the mortgagee, as a nominee for the Lender, and Lender's successors and This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower's covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. For this purpose, Borrower does hereby mortgage, grant and co n vey to l\t1ERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) and to the successors and assigns ofl\.1ERS, the following described property .... (P-2, page 3 of 16). The Mortgage executed by the Appellant, specifically provides, inter alia, that Brokers Conduit, the mortgage further provides that: mortgagee under the security instrument and as nominee for the lender, American Brokers Conduit and its successors and assigns. The Mortgage lists MERS as the Registration Systems , Inc. ("MERS"), acting solely as a nominee for American Appellant executed a mortgage ("Mortgage") in favor of Mortgage Electronic Note and contemporaneously with the execution of the Note on November 16, 2006, the Mortgage to HSBC, he provided no support for this claim. As security for the Although Appellant contends that l\t1ERS did not have the authority to assign 687 A.2d 1167m 1172 (Pa. Super. 1997). shoes of the assignor and assumes all of his rights. See 

### Smith v. Cumberland, Ltd

. , Super. 1993). Where an assignment is effective, however, the assignee stands in the 459 A.2d 744 (Pa

. 1983); Collins v . Allstate Indemn. Co., 626 A.2d 1162, 1166 (Pa.

### mortgage via a mortgage foreclosure action." U.S

. Bank, N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 10 

### it is "not a prerequisite to [ a bank] having standing to seek enforcement of the assignment of mortgage has no legal import between the parties to the assignment as 2010. (P-2). The recording of an County Recorder of Deeds on 

### 0 u l 

## y 7 J to HSBC and the Assignment of Mortgage was duly recorded with the Delaware MERS, as nominee for Lender and its assigns, assigned Defendant's Mortgage TIDRD PARTY BENEFICIARY the Recorder of Deeds. (P-2, P-16). MERS, had express authority to execute the Assignment of Mortgage recorded with Assignment of Mortgage to HSBC and Ms

. Romano, as a Certifying Officer of to be registered to the Member

.... " (P-16). rvIBRS had authority to execute the property securing any mortgage loan registered on the MERS System that is shown permission to execute ".

. . any and all documents necessary to foreclose upon the Resolution expressly identified Ms. Romano as a Certifying Officer and gave her Corporate Resolution. (P-16). The Agreement for Signing Authority and Corporate Assignment of Mortgage, Judith Romano, pursuant to an Agreement for Signing and Further, rvIBRS granted signing authority to the individual who executed the A.2d 77 (Pa. Super. 2009). nominee for a lender. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc

. v. Ralich, 982 the Assignment of Mortgage. rvIBRS may execute mortgage assignments as the

### party beneficiary of the Assignment of Mortgage. Accordingly, Appellant lacks 11 

### Pioneer Bank, N.A., 834 A

. 2d 1191, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2003). Appellant is not a th i rd contract express an intention to benefit the third party in the contract itself. Melley v. A party becomes a third party beneficiary only where both parties to the Assignment of Mortgage. 2010). Appellant is not a party to the Assignment of Mortgage and did not sign the A.2d 447, 452 (\'I 

### 59J;'.Ira G. Steffy & Son. Inc., 7 A.3d 278, 287-88 (Pa. Super. the contract is invalid. Shuster v. Pa

. Turnpike Commonwealth. 395 Pa. 441, 149 Pa.C.S. §9203(g)

. One who is not a party to a contract lacks standing to argue that encumbered real estate, only. In Pennsylvania, the mortgage follows the note. 13 personal obligation of the obligor (mortgagor). Judgment on the mortgage is on the the note, while separate instruments, secure the same debt. However, the note is a evidence of the debt obligation for which the mortgage is given. The mortgage and A mortgage is generally accompanied by a promissory note. The note is 1980). Hahnemann Medical College & 

### Hospital v . Com., 416 A.2d 604 (Pa. Commw. upon satisfaction of the underlying debt or the fulfillment of established conditions

. " deed, requiring the grantee to re-convey the property held as a security to the grantor and creates a security interest in real estate

. "A mortgage is in essence a defeasible 986, 994 (Pa. Super. 2009). A mortgage is a written instrument that both conveys12



### Except as provided in subsections ( c) and ( d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it: following definition of a negotiable instrument: Uniform Commercial Code. Section 3104 of the PUCC offers, in relevant part, the The Note at issue is a negotiable instrument governed by Pennsylvania's pre-foreclosure notifications and Appellant failed to cure the default. under the Mortgage and Note. This Court also found that HSBC issued the proper secured by the Mortgage. Appellant's failure to make monthly payments is a default owner of the property 3921 Gideon Road, Brookhaven, Pennsylvania 19015-1220 HSBC, is the owner and holder of the Mortgage and Note. Appellant is the Mortgage Foreclosure who is seeking enforcement of the Note and Mortgage. as he is not at risk of paying the same claim twice; there is only one party, HSBC, interest in the Assignment of Mortgage. He is also not at risk for a "potential injury" Morgan Chase Bank v. Murray. 63 A.3d 1~1.iv, 1a1,1o 

### (Pa: Super. 2013). Appellant has no and the Mortgage by a party acting under an alleged defective assignment. J.P. unless the defendant demonstrates potential injury from the enforcement of the Note Mortgage to Plaintiff. A defendant lacks standing to challenge a transfer of the Note standing to challenge the validity of the transfer and assignment of the Note and the

### becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone 13 

### indorsement, it is a 'blank indorsement.' When indorsed in blank, an instrument indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special faith. Id. § 3302

. The PUCC defines a blank indorsement as follows: "If an question its authenticity;" and the holder took the instrument for value and in good forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of negotiable instrument is defined as the holder of an instrument if "the instrument The Note at issue meets all of these qualifications. A holder in due course of a 13 Pa.C.S. § · 

### 3\ ot..{ (o..') (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor. (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral; or (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain or protect collateral to secure payment; (3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain: (2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and (1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;

### Appellant in the amount of $105,769.14, together with interest and other costs and 14 

### to cure the default, an in rem judgment was entered in favor of HSBC, and against In light of Appellant's default for failure to make monthly payments and the failure HSBC holds and possesses the original Note and produced the original Note at trial. payable in blank, without recourse making it bearer paper. 13 Pa.C.S. §3109(a). The Note was indorsed by the lender, American Brokers Conduit and made 102 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2014). held the note" pursuant to 13 Pa.C.S. §3109(a), 3301. Bank of Am

. , N

. A. v. Gibson, blank is a 'bearer note', payable to anyone on demand regardless of who previously possession alone until specially indorsed." 13 Pa.C.S. § 3205(b ). "A note indorsed in instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of the transferor has therein." 13 Pa. C.S. § 3~0!J(b). 

### When indorsed in blank, "an party to another, the transfer of the instrument "vests in the transferee such rights as When a negotiable instrument, such as the subject Note, is transferred from one 63 A.3d 1258, 1265-66 (Pa. Super. 2013)

. that it is not payable to an identified person. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray , payee; or (3) states that it is payable to or to the order of cash or otherwise indicates in possession of the promise or order is entitled to payment; (2) does not state a it is payable to bearer or to the order of bearer or otherwise indicates that the person until specially indorsed." Id.§ 3205(b). A note is payable to bearer if it (1) states thatI',:)

~~ = J. "'T "

~-r ;- D :::If ! > Ge > :~ - -· , -< , - )>>

- ~: 

## ' 

## ' rri ::u r - - co f11U> "' 0 r:- 1 c,C:o ~ 0 -o..,, ::g L

. -u -oa Q) ......_ ~ !$' ;p.;:o 

# . . (

.. ~ ~ 0

U) 15 BY THE COURT: 

### decision be AFFIRMED. For the aforementioned reasons, the trial court respectfully requests that its and failed to prove any harm, injury, or damages he purportedly sustained. evidence prove concise facts supporting a theory of a fraud perpetrated upon him, Servov, 615 A.2d 438, 441 (Pa. Super. 1992). Appellant did not through competent fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Pittsburgh Live, Inc. v. Blumenstock v . Gibson, 811 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Pa. Super. 2002). The elements of falsity; ( 4) with intent to mislead another; (5) justifiable reliance; and (6) injury. (2) that is material; (3) that is made with knowledge or reckless indifference of its A 

### prima facie case of fraud requires a party to establish: (1) a representation; Fraud property. charges collectible under the mortgage, for foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged