J-S68036-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

HSBC BANK USA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TRUSTEE PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KEVIN A. KRONBERG

Appellant No. 3365 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order October 21, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Civil Division at No(s): 2010-08737

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE, J., and MUNDY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2015

Appellant, Kevin A. Kroberg, appeals from the October 21, 2014 order 

denying his “Motion to Set-Aside Sheriff’s Foreclosure Sale.” After careful 

consideration, we affirm on the basis expressed in the thorough and wellsupported opinion of the Honorable Thomas C. Branca.

The trial court summarized the procedural and factual history of this 

case in its April 27, 2015 opinion, and we need not repeat it here in full. We 

highlight a few salient points for clarity. This matter commenced with the 

filing of a mortgage foreclosure complaint by Appellee, HSBC Bank, NA 

Trustee (HSBC Bank), on April 5, 2010. HSBC Bank obtained a default 

judgment on May 28, 2010, and the matter proceeded to a sheriff’s sale on 

December 18, 2013. Throughout this time, Appellant took no responsive 

action in the case except to move to adjourn the sheriff’s sale on September 
J-S68036-15

- 2 -

23, 2013, which was withdrawn later that same day. The motion was refiled 

on December 17, 2013 and denied the following day. The property was sold 

at a sheriff’s sale on February 10, 2014. The sheriff’s deed was delivered 

and recorded on February 20, 2014. Not until March 5, 2014, did Appellant 

file the instant petition to set aside the sheriff’s sale. After hearing 

argument, and receiving briefs from the parties, the trial court denied 

Appellant’s petition on October 23, 2014. Appellant filed a timely notice of 

appeal on November 19, 2014.1

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.

(1) Did the trial court commit an error of law in 

denying Kronberg’s Motion to Set-Aside Sheriff’s 

[F]oreclosure Sale when [HSBC Bank] (Plaintiff 

below), foreclosing lender did not have 

“authority”/standing to execute on its foreclosure 

judgment for want of a pre-judgment record 

assigned mortgage and negotiated transferred note 

such as to allow foreclosing lender to have conducted 

its Sheriff’s Sale? 

(2) Did the trial court commit an error of law in 

denying a requested evidentiary hearing, or, 

alternatively, discovery towards oral argument?

Appellant’s Brief at 8.2

____________________________________________

1 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 1925. 

2 Appellant failed to include his second issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement. 

Therefore, we conclude this issue is waived. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 

16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (holding “any issues not raised in a Rule 

1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”).
J-S68036-15

- 3 -

We note the following standards guiding our review of this appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 3132 of the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Civil Procedure, a sheriff’s sale may be set

aside upon petition of an interested party “upon 

proper cause shown” and where the trial court 

deems it “just and proper under the circumstances.” 

Pa.R.C.P. 3132. The burden of proving 

circumstances warranting the exercise of the court’s 

equitable powers is on the petitioner. Equitable 

considerations govern the trial court’s decision to set

aside a sheriff’s sale, and this Court will not reverse 

the trial court’s decision absent an abuse of 

discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs where, for 

example, the trial court misapplies the law.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Lark, 73 A.3d 1265, 1267 (Pa. Super. 

2013).

[Pennsylvania] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 3135 makes 

it clear that a party has 20 days to take exceptions 

before the sheriff executes a sheriff’s deed. 

Taken together, Rule 3132 and 3135(a) make 

clear a party must raise a challenge to a sheriff’s sale

within a period of time after the sale, but before the 

deed is delivered.

Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Ralich, 982 A.2d 77, 80 (Pa. 

Super. 2009), appeal denied, 992 A.2d 889 (Pa. 2010). “There is an 

exception to this time bar, however. A sheriff’s sale may be set aside after 

delivery of the sheriff’s deed based on fraud or lack of authority to make the 

sale.” Id. (citations omitted).

Instantly, Appellant’s petition was patently late. However, Appellant 

asserts that he has demonstrated lack of authority for the sheriff’s sale, 

because “[t]he failure of a pre-judgment record assigned mortgage and 
J-S68036-15

- 4 -

negotiated transferred note through the chain of loan title precludes 

foreclosing lender’s authority/standing to have executed thereupon its 

default judgment ....” Appellant’s Brief at 14. Essentially, Appellant claims 

the sheriff had no authority to sell the property because HSBC Bank 

allegedly lacked standing at the time it brought the suit. Id. 

We agree with the trial court that Appellant’s claim is meritless. 

Standing is a non-jurisdictional and waivable issue. In re Condemnation 

by Urban Redev. Auth. of Pittsburgh, 913 A.2d 178, 181 n.6 (Pa. 2006). 

Any challenges to a party’s capacity to sue must be raised in preliminary 

objections or in an answer to the complaint. In re Estate of Alexander,

758 A.2d 182, 189 (Pa. Super. 2000); see also Pa.R.C.P., Rule 1028(a)(5). 

The issue of standing to sue is waived unless specifically raised in a 

preliminary objection or in the answer to the complaint. Erie Indem. Co. v. 

Coal Operators Cas. Co., 272 A.2d 465, 467 (Pa. 1971). Appellant never 

challenged HSBC Bank’s standing during the foreclosure proceedings, and 

has waived the issue. We also agree with the trial court that HSBC Bank’s 

various pleadings and averments were adequate on their face to indicate 

HSBC Bank’s standing was proper. Trial Court Opinion, 4/27/15, at 6-7.

Accordingly, we adopt the April 27, 2015 opinion of the Honorable 

Thomas C. Branca as our own for the purposes of our disposition of this 

appeal. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it 

denied Appellant’s petition to set aside the sheriff’s sale in this case. See 
J-S68036-15

- 5 -

Lark, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s October 21, 2014 

order.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/28/2015
I Order is docketed 10/23/14. 

2 In its Complaint, Plaintiff identifies itself as "HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee, Under 

the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated May I, 2004, Fremont Home Loan Trust 2004-B, AssetBacked Certificates, Series 2004-B 4828 Loop Central Drive Houston, Tx. 7708102226." 

Issue Writ of Execution. [Praecipe, 6/23/1 OJ. 

Strike and/or Open the Default Judgment. On June 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Praecipe to 

Prothonotary entered judgment against Defendant. Defendant did not file a Petition to 

Failure to Answer and Assessment of Damages, at which point the Montgomery County 

Pennsylvania.' Thereafter, on May 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Judgment For 

Defendant/Mortgagor of the property located at 926 Columbia A venue, Lansdale, 

together with interest, other costs, fees and applicable charges, against 

Mortgage Foreclosure, seeking an in rem judgment in the amount of $157,125. 92, 

This suit commenced on April 5, 2010 with Plaintiff's filing of a Complaint in 

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

For the following reasons, the Court's Order should be AFFIRMED. 

dated October 21, 2014, denying his Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Foreclosure Sale.1 

Defendant, Kevin Kronenberg appeals to the Superior Court this CoU11's Order 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Branca, J. April 27, 2015 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

KEVIN A. KRONENBERG 

Defendant 

1111 rJiM(~J~Dll 11 

2010-08737-0061 4/27/2015 11:46 AM # 10273856 

Opinion 

Rcpt#Z2388802 foi:$0.00 

Mark L~,'Y - MontCo Prothonotary 

v. 

NO. 10-08737 

3365 EDA 2014 

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION TRUSTEE 

Plaintiff 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

Circulated 12/15/2015 10:49 AM
3 The record also reflects the document entitled "Deed Poll Acknowledged & Returned to Sheriffs Office," 

was filed on February I 0, 2014. See Montco. Local Rule 3135. 

2 

5. For the foregoing, the within Sheriff's foreclosure Sale should be setaside. 

4. Upon information and belief (for preservation, discovery, and 

evidentiary examination at hearing or otherwise), Plaintiff's judgment 

and thus execution thereupon by Sheriff's Sale was without 

"authority" and therefore was a "fraud" upon this Honorable Court for 

failure of Plaintiff to have been the pre-judgment (if not pre-Sale) 

record mortgage assignee and note transferee through the chain of loan 

title. U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2009). 

3. For "want of authority" or "fraud," a Sheriff's foreclosure Sale may be 

set-aside subsequent to the Sheriff's Deed Poll recordation. ConcordLiberty Savings & Loan Assoc., et al. v. NTC Properties, Inc., 454 Pa. 

472 (1973) (citing Panison v. Erb, 424 Pa. 306 (1967)). 

2. Upon information and belief, the Sheriff's Deed Poll has been 

recorded to Plaintiff. 

1. This is an action in mortgage foreclosure with sheriff's foreclosure 

sale of Defendant's property having concluded. 

Mot., 3/5/14]. The following sets forth the entirety of Defendant's Motion: 

sought relief from the Sheriff's Sale, by filing an untimely Motion to Set Aside. [Def.' s 

On March 5, 2014, nearly two months after delivery of the Deed, Defendant 

[Recorder's Certification, 2/20/14]. 

Plaintiff, was delivered on December 18, 2013, and recorded on February 11, 2014. 

of Deeds further certified that a Sheriff's Deed, conveying the subject property to 

[Pl.'s Resp., 3/20/14, Ex. A].3 On February 20, 2014, the Montgomery County Recorder 

presence of' Greg Womelsdorf, the Acting Sheriff, and recorded on February 11, 2014. 

Property, 2/10/14]. On, January 13, 2014, the Deed was "Sealed and Delivered in the 

Sheriff's Sale on the Writ for the sum of $2,360.67. [Sheriff's Certification of Sale of 

More than three years later, on December 18, 2013, the property was sold at 

Circulated 12/15/2015 10:49 AM
3 

4 Order is docketed I 0/23/ 14. 

2. Whether the trial court erred in finding Plaintiff was the pre-judgment 

record assigned mortgagee and recipient of the negotiated transferred note 

such as to allow it to have conducted its Sheriffs Sale? 

l. Whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant-Appellant's Motion 

to Set Aside Plaintiffs Sheriffs foreclosure Sale? 

"l 925(b) Statement"): 

the following Concise Statement of Matters Complained Of On Appeal (Pa. R.A.P. 

Thereafter, on January 8, 2015, Defendant timely filed and served upon the undersigned 

October 21, 2014.4 Defendant filed a timely Notice of Appeal on November 19, 2014. 

Sheriffs Foreclosure Sale, the undersigned denied Defendant's Motion by Order dated 

to Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Set-Aside 

Foreclosure Sale, as well as Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition 

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Sheriffs 

After argument and submission of Defendant's post-argument Supplemental 

[Def.'s Mem., 3/5/14]. 

Incorporating by reference Defendant's attached motion, Defendant 

reserves the right to supplement this motion through discovery and/or at 

hearing or otherwise as more information becomes available. 

following sentence: 

in Support of his Motion lacked any legal analysis and, instead, was limited to the 

repeating the prayer for relief set forth in his Motion, Defendant's Memorandum of Law 

[Def.'s Mot. to Set-Aside, ,r ,r 1-5, 3/5/14] (transcribed exactly as drafted). In addition to 

6. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Kronenberg, respectfully requests this 

Honorable Court set-aside Plaintiffs Sheriffs foreclosure Sale 

consistent with the attached proposed Order. To the extent this 

Honorable Court entertains denying Defendant's within motion, 

Defendant respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing or, in the 

alternative, oral argument before this Honorable Court as to Plaintiffs 

"want of authority"/"fraud". 

Circulated 12/15/2015 10:49 AM
4 

982 A.2d at 80. 

authority to make the sale. See Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Ralich, 

after delivery of the deed, but only where the movant demonstrates fraud or lack of 

applies in limited circumstances which may permit a Court to set aside a sheriffs sale 

(internal citation omitted)). A narrow exception to Pa. R.C.P. 3 l 32's strict time bar 

delivery of a sheriff's deed divests the court of the authority to set aside a sheriff's sale." 

Ralich, 982 A.2d at 79 ("The trial judge struck the Ralichs' Petition as untimely because 

authority to set aside a sheriff's sale. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. 

Moreover, it is well-settled that delivery of the deed divests the court of the 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 982 A.2d at 79. 

exercise its equitable powers to set aside. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 73 A.3d 1265 at 1267; 

circumstances warranting relief, and only "upon proper cause shown," will the trial court 

Ralich, 982 A.2d 77, 79 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). Petitioner bears the burden of proving 

sheriffs delivery of the deed. Id.; See Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. 

Id. (emphasis added). To be timely, a petition to set aside must be filed before the 

Upon petition of any party in interest before delivery of the personal 

property or of the sheriffs deed to real property, the court may, upon 

proper cause shown, set aside the sale and order a resale or enter any other 

order which may be just and proper under the circumstances. 

A.3d 1265 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 3132: 

aside sheriffs sale absent an abuse of discretion. Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Lark, 73 

An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's decision denying a petition to set 

III. DISCUSSION 

3. Whether the trial court erred in finding Plaintiff had standing/authority 

to have conducted its Sheriffs' Sale? 

Circulated 12/15/2015 10:49 AM
5 

suggestion, the recording of an assignment of the mortgage was not a prerequisite to 

Mallory, 982 A.2d 986, 994 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) ("Simply put, contrary to Appellant's 

enforcement of the mortgage via a mortgage foreclosure action. US. Bank, NA. v. 

assignment of the mortgage is not a prerequisite to mortgagee's standing to seek 

In US. Bank, NA. v. Mallory, the Superior Court held that the recording of an 

00870, et seq.]. 

Mortgage, Bk. 11009, PG. 02144; see also, Assignment of Mortgage, Bk. 12595, PG 

have the authority to conduct the Sale which occurred on December 18, 2013. [See 

despite Defendant's claim regarding the underlying judgment, the Sheriff did indeed, 

cursory review of the record, including the recorded mortgage assignments, reflects that 

to merit relief from the Court. See Pa. R.C.P. 3123; see Ralich, 982 A.2d 77, 80. A 

delivered on January 13, 2014, he was required to demonstrate fraud or lack of authority 

As previously discussed, because Defendant filed his Motion after the Deed was 

Defendant's assertion is meritless. 

authority to the Sheriff to conduct the sale, and the judgment was not void ab initio, 

without authority. As Defendant acquiesced at every critical stage effectively conceding 

possession of the note, and therefore, the subsequent Sheriffs Sale was conducted 

the assignment of the Mortgage to Plaintiff had not yet been recorded, nor was Plaintiff in 

taken by default on May 28, 2010, was entered without the requisite legal basis because 

pleading, the basis of Defendant's claim appears to be that the underlying judgment, 

Sale was tainted by fraud or lack of authority. While not entirely clear from Defendant's 

denied Defendant's Motion to Set Aside where he failed to establish that the Sheriffs 

Despite Defendant's bald assertions, and as discussed below, the Court properly 

The Court Properly Denied Defendant's Motion To Set Aside Where 

Defendant Failed to Demonstrate The Requisite Fraud or Lack of Authority. 

Circulated 12/15/2015 10:49 AM
6 

answer, Defendant has conceded to the legal inference that at all relevant times Plaintiff 

Complaint or seek to open or strike the default judgment entered thereon for want of an 

indicated it was the holder of the mortgage's note.") As Defendant failed to answer the 

averment in its complaint that it was the "legal owner" of the mortgage sufficiently 

of the mortgage's note. US. Bank, NA., 982 A.2d at 994 (Determining that mortgagee's 

asserted in the instant case, sufficiently indicates that the foreclosing party is the holder 

mortgage foreclosure that the foreclosing party is the legal owner of the mortgage, as 

transferee of the note, it is now well-established that an averment in a complaint in 

Moreover, with regard to Defendant's bald assertion that Plaintiff was not the 

A.2d at 994. 

of judgment, nor did it undermine the legality of that judgment. See US. Bank, NA., 982 

not recorded until November 16, 2010 did not deprive Plaintiff of standing to seek entry 

Plaintiff at the time it sought entry of default judgment. The fact that the assignment was 

review of the May 17, 2010 assignment reflects that the Mortgage had been assigned to 

authority to initiate the entry of default judgment by the Prothonotary on May 28, 2010, a 

as of the date of the Sheriff's Sale. While Defendant asserts that Plaintiff lacked 

[Comp I., at ~3, 4/5/1 OJ. That assignment and all subsequent assignments were recorded 

On 02/03/2004 mortgagor(s) made, executed and delivered a mortgage ... 

which mortgage is recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Montgomery 

County, in Mortgage Book No. 11009, Page 2144. By Assignment of 

Mortgage recorded 02/27 /2008 the Mortgage was assigned to Fremont 

Investment & Loan which Assignment is recorded in Assignment of 

Mortgage Book No. 12332, Page 2671. The Plaintiff is now the legal 

owner of the mortgage and is in the process of formalizing an assignment 

of same. 

2010. In that Complaint, which went unanswered, Plaintiff asserted: 

foreclosure action.") In this case, Plaintiff initiated suit by filing a Complaint on April 5, 

Appellee having standing to seek enforcement of the mortgage via a mortgage 

Circulated 12/15/2015 10:49 AM
7 

5 It should be noted that Defendant is not at risk to being twice held to satisfy the debt of the note even if 

Plaintiff was not the holder of the note as the debt was satisfied by the Sheriffs Sale. 13 Pa. C.S. 3602(a); 

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1263 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). 

6 See Bank of New York f/k/a The Bank of New York, As Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the CWMBS 

Inc., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 200 7- 17, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate, Series 200 7-17 v. 

Chughtai, No. 1376 EDA 2014, 1.0.P. 65.37, Concurr., at *5 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 20, 2015)) ("That the 

assignment had not in fact been recorded at the time that the complaint was filed did not render the record 

deficient on its face such that the judgment was void; at most it merely was voidable.") (internal citation 

omitted); Id. at *4 ("A voidable judgment may be stricken only when the petition is filed 'within a 

reasonable period foJJowing the entry of the judgment."') (internal citation omitted). 

7 Bank of New York Pk/a The Bank of New York, As Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the CWMBS Inc., 

CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2007-17, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate, Series 2007-17, 

Concurr., at *2-3 ("The difficulty here is that, despite undisputedly having received personal service of 

BNY's foreclosure complaint on the subject property, Chughtai did not contest BNY's complaint, which 

led to the entry of a default judgment. Chughtai also did not later seek to open or strike that default 

judgment in a timely manner, effectively acquiescing to the judgment. Because the sheriffs authority Jay 

in the writ of execution entered upon the default judgment, which Chughtai also did not chaJJenge, only by 

establishing that the default judgment was void ab initio might Chughtai prevail in his challenge to the 

sheriffs sale.") 

merit. 

conduct that Sale. 7 For all of the aforementioned reasons, Defendant's appeal is without 

judgment upon which a writ of execution issued granting to the Sheriff authority to 

entry of default judgment and to proceed to Sheriffs Sale on the unchallenged default 

As discussed above, the record amply supports Plaintiffs authority to both seek 

If a plaintiff has commenced an action in his or her own name and 

thereafter transfers the interest therein, in whole or in part, the action may 

continue in the name of the original plaintiff, or upon petition of the 

original plaintiff or of the transferee or of any other party in interest in the 

action, the court may direct the transferee to be substituted as plaintiff or 

joined with the original plaintiff. 

basis to invalidate the subsequent Sale. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2004: 

property at various points throughout this action against Defendant does not serve as a 

Finally, the fact that another similar entity may have held legal ownership of the 

Without question the judgment was not void ab initio under these circumstances. 6 

was in possession of the note which the mortgage, clearly assigned to Plaintiff, secures.5 

Circulated 12/15/2015 10:49 AM
8 

Secretary \ ....._ 

Copies of the above Opinion 

mailed onl{ /J.l /15 to: 

By First Class Mail: 

Lauren Tabas, Esquire 

Matthew B. Weisberg, Esquire 

By Interoffice Mail: 

Court Administration 

Chum/\ ~J\JlQJ\ 

2014, denying Defendant's Motion to Set Aside should be AFFIRMED. 

For all of the aforementioned reasons, the trial court's Order dated October 21, 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Circulated 12/15/2015 10:49 AM