2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-8-2013 

# Ge r ald Gesiorsk

i v . B r a nch B a nk

in g & T r u s t C o
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-2900

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Ge r ald Ge sior sk i v

. B r a nch B a nk in g & T

r us t C o " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 853. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/853

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________ No. 12

- 2900

__________ GERALD GESIORSKI; DAWN GESIORSKI; LIL' BIT OF CHICACO, INC., Appellants

v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMP ANY, f/k/a Carrol County Bank & Trust

__________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1

- 12

- cv - 00449 ) District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

A pril 23, 2013 BEFORE: SLOVITER, JORDAN, and NYGAARD , Circuit Judges

(Filed : May 8, 2013 )

__________ OPINION OF THE COURT

__________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge

. Gerald and Dawn Gesiorski, and Lil’ Bit of Chicago, Inc. appeal the District Court’s grant of a motio n to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) brought by Branch

### 2

Banking & Trust Company. Appellants argue that the District Court erred by d ismissing their claim for statutory damages under the Pennsylvania Mortgage Satisfaction Act. 21 P.S. § 721

- 6(d). 1 

### We will affirm

. There is no dispute that Appellants failed to pay the full mortgage obligation prior to foreclosure, making it impossible for them to prove “payment of the entire mortgage obligation and all required satisfaction and recording costs.” 2 1 P.S. § 721

- 6(d). Appellants argue that the debt was constructively discharged under the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 8103(b)), but there is no legal authority for the proposition that constructive discharge of the debt equates to “ payment” of the mortgage for purposes of the Mortgage Satisfaction Act. Therefore, app ellants could not and did not state a claim for damages under the referenced section of the Mortgage Satisfaction
Act “ that is plausible on its face

. ” Jones v. ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc., 606 F.3d 119, 123 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)) . The District Court did not err. For these reasons we will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing the claim with prejudice.

1 

### Appellants did not appeal the denial of its claims for liquidated damages and attorney’s fees.