J-A03034-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOC AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE 

CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY DEUTCHE 

ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE 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 history of this case. We add Appellant timely filed posttrial 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 Page)
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, 2015, 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 the following issues for our review:

DID THE [TRIAL] COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW AND 

ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER 

THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE NUMEROUS 

INTENTIONAL DECEITS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF 

[APPELLEE] AND ITS VARIOUS COUNSELS, THEREBY 

DEPRIVING THE [TRIAL] COURT OF JURISDICTION TO 

HEAR THE MATTER WHEN APPELLEE DID NOT HAVE 

STANDING TO INVOKE THE COURT’S JURISDICTION 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, Appellant 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

Pa.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] COURT MAKE AN ERROR IN FACT 

AND AN ERROR OF LAW IN FAILING TO UPHOLD 

PA.R.C.P. 2002 BY IGNORING GOVERNMENTCERTIFIED AND AUTHENTICATED EVIDENCE, THAT 

THE TRIAL COURT ADMITTED, WHICH CLEARLY 

ESTABLISHES APPELLEE LACKED STANDING AND 

WAS THEREFORE NOT A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST? 

DID THE [TRIAL] COURT MAKE AN ERROR IN FACT 

AND AN ERROR IN LAW WHEN [MS. ROMANO] 

ROBO-SIGNED APPELLANT’S ASSIGNMENT OF 

MORTGAGE? 

DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION 

AND SHOW BIAS IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE, THEREBY 

DEPRIVING APPELLANT HIS RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS 

TO A FAIR AND EQUITABLE 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 issues.” 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 quash or dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to conform 
J-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). 

Instantly, 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 rules, 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 

references to Appellant’s version of the facts. Thus, Appellant’s fourth issue 

is waived. See id. 

After 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 conclude 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, Appellant executed Mortgage in favor 

of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), acting solely as 
J-A03034-16

- 5 -

nominee for American Brokers Conduit (“ABC”), and its successors and 

assigns; Mortgage specifically lists MERS as mortgagee and nominee for 

Lender, 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 Appellee, 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 

assignment 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 preforeclosure notifications, and Appellant failed to 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: 4/5/2016
1 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\rv\.\ 1\, 2015 

GREEN, J. FILED: M~y s, Jo\5_ 

OPINION 

Elizabeth Gallard, Esquire 

Patrick T. Carney,pro se 

PATRICK T. CARNEY 

v. 

HSBC BANK, USA, NATIONAL NO. 2010-010108 

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 AM
2 

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 because 

Mortgage 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, Appellant 
3 

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 owner5 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 Brokers 
6 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 least 

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).6 
7 

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 

TOTAL $105,769.14 

At trial, Appellee produced the original Note, made it available for inspection, 

and Appellant inspected the original Note and confirmed that he signed 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 Advance 
8 

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 convey 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 

County Recorder of Deeds on 0 u l y 7 J 2010. (P-2). The recording of an 

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 third 

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 conveys 
12 

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 that 
I',:) 

~~ 

= J. "'T" 

~-r 

;-D :::If ! 

>Ge > 

:~--·, -< ,- 

)>>-~: ' ::ur-- co ' rri f11U>"' 0 r:-1 

c,C:o ~ 

0 -o..,, ::g 

. -u L 

-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