J-A04010-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

THOMAS J. CONWAY IV 

Appellant

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., A.K.A 

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 610 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 12, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at 

No(s): No. 181202442

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2022

Thomas J. Conway, IV, appeals, pro se, from the judgment, entered in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in favor of appellee, Wells 

Fargo Bank N.A., a.k.a. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (“Wells Fargo”), in an 

action commenced by Conway asserting violations of various state and federal 

laws in connection with the reinstatement by Wells Fargo of Conway’s loans 

following the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. Because Conway has 

waived all of his appellate claims, we affirm.

It is well-settled that the failure to raise an issue in a post-trial motion 

waives appellate review of the claim. Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491, 494 

(Pa. 2002); Bensinger v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 98 A.3d 672, 682 

(Pa. Super. 2014); see also Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(b)(2); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Here, 
J-A04010-22

- 2 -

none of the claims Conway raises in his Statement of the Questions Presented1

was included in his post-trial motion.2 Accordingly, Conway has waived all of 

his claims on appeal. See id. 

____________________________________________

1 Conway raises the following claims on appeal:

1. Does a residential mortgage lender, servicer[,] or creditor have 

a legal right to contract for and request reimbursement for legal 

fees in the amount of $820.00 as a condition for a borrower to 

reinstate his loan prior to the lender, servicer[,] or creditor filing 

a complaint of mortgage foreclosure against him?

2. Does a residential mortgage lender, servicer[,] or creditor have 

a legal right to charge pending, estimated, unbilled, unearned[,] 

or otherwise not incurred legal fees as a condition for a borrower 

to reinstate his loan?

3. Is a mortgage lender, servicer[,] or creditor permitted to 

provide a borrower with a mortgage reinstatement quote that 

does not itemize the differences between foreclosure and legal 

costs actually incurred and foreclosure and legal costs which are 

estimated?

4. Is a mortgage lender, servicer[,] or creditor permitted to 

request payment from a borrower for estimated attorney trial fees 

which are estimated to occur after the borrower’s requested 

reinstatement date as a condition of reinstatement?

5. Should these requests by a lender, servicer[,] or creditor for a 

borrower to pay unreasonable, excessive, estimated[,] or not 

incurred legal fees in foreclosure costs be determined a violation 

of law, does the lender then retain the legal right to furnish 

negative information to credit reporting agencies during the 

months from the violation through today?

6. Is a lender, servicer[,] or creditor permitted to delay in 

reinstating a borrower’s mortgage for a period of six months after 

receipt of the borrower’s reinstatement payment?

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A04010-22

- 3 -

____________________________________________

7. Do the above actions constitute prima facie evidence of willful 

or negligent behavior?

Brief of Appellant, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

2 Conway raised the following claims in his post-trial motion:

1. Did the court abuse its discretion by abbreviating the trial?

2. Did the court abuse its discretion by failing to rule on all pretrial motions prior to trial?

3. Did the court err as a matter of law when it sustained [Wells 

Fargo’s] objection during [Conway’s] opening statement 

disallowing [Conway] to enter into evidence Wells Fargo’s publicly 

provided financial statements which includes admissions of prior 

mortgage servicing failures against other borrowers yet permitted 

[Wells Fargo] to bring forth exhibits alleging prior bad acts by 

[Conway]?

4. Did the court err as a matter of law by allowing [Wells Fargo] 

to submit evidence of private communications protected under 

Pa.R.Civ.P. 408?

5. Did the court abuse its discretion by disallowing [Conway’s] 

cross examination of [Wells Fargo’s] corporate representative to 

the specific details of [Conway’s] mortgage activity and 

transactions from 2013 through 2018?

6. Did the court err as a matter of law by not ruling on [Wells 

Fargo’s] motion for directed verdict prior to its final order in favor 

of [Wells Fargo]?

7. Did the court err as a matter of law when it entered a verdict 

in favor of [Wells Fargo] on Count 2, Willful Violations of the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)[;] Count 3, Negligent Violations of 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act[;] Count 5, Violations of the 

Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Collections Law and 

Consumer Protection Law[;] Count 6, Violations of the 

Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Act[;] Count 7, Violations of 

the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act[;] Count 8, Breach of 

Contract[; and] Count 9, Violations of the Pennsylvania Loan 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A04010-22

- 4 -

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/2022

____________________________________________

Interest and Protection Law in light of the fact that [Conway’s] 

evidence met its burden of proof on those counts?

Post-Trial Motion, 2/21/21, at 2-3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).