J-A04039-20

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

E*TRADE BANK

v.

MATTHEW GRASSA, SANDRA 

LANDMESSER GRASSA AND 

OCCUPANTS 

Appellants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 661 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 24, 2019

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

No(s): CV-2017-006606

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STRASSBURGER, J.*, and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2020

Appellants, Matthew Grassa and Sandra Landmesser Grassa 

(Defendants), appeal from judgment entered on January 24, 2019, against 

Defendants and in favor of E*Trade Bank (Plaintiff). We affirm.

The facts underlying this appeal are as follows. Defendants are the 

current occupants of the property in question. Amended Complaint at ¶ 9, 

Answer at ¶ 9. Plaintiff filed a complaint in ejection against Defendants. 

Amended Complaint, New Matter at ¶ 16. Plaintiff attached a Sheriff’s Deed 

to its Amended Complaint that accurately described the property in question. 

Amended Complaint, Exhibit 1; Answer at ¶ 3. 

On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for ejectment against 

Defendants. On December 27, 2017, Defendants filed preliminary objections 

to Plaintiff’s complaint, alleging that Plaintiff failed to conform its complaint to 
J-A04039-20

- 2 -

established law because the verification attached to the complaint was signed 

by Plaintiff’s attorney Martha E. Von Rosentiel, Esq., and not Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

filed an amended complaint on January 16, 2018, attaching a verification 

signed by the Vice President of Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Bayview), 

Attorney-in-fact for Plaintiff, verifying that the statements in the complaint 

are true and correct to the best of her knowledge and made subject to 18 

Pa.C.S. § 4904. Plaintiff attached a limited power of attorney between Plaintiff 

and Bayview to the amended complaint. On February 16, 2018, Defendants 

filed preliminary objections to Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Defendants 

claim that Plaintiff failed to attach a proper abstract of the title of the property 

to their complaint. Additionally, Defendants again complained that the 

verification attached to the amended complaint was not signed by Plaintiff and 

states, “[t]he power of attorney attached to the amended complaint does not 

grant authority to Bayview or any other attorney-in-fact to bring an action in 

ejectment.” 

On February 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’

preliminary objections. On May 3, 2018, the trial court filed an order 

overruling Defendants’ preliminary objections. On May 23, 2018, Defendants 

filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s complaint and incorporated new matter. On June 

7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants’ new matter. On June 11, 2018, 

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied 

without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile its motion upon completion of discovery. 

On October 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second motion for summary judgment. 
J-A04039-20

- 3 -

On January 24, 2019, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. On February 25, 2019, 

Defendants filed this timely notice of appeal.1

Defendants present the following issues for review: 

1. Whether, where genuine issues of material fact exist, the 

trial court abused its discretion and/or committed errors 

of law by granting a motion for summary judgment. 

2. Whether, where a post-foreclosure complaint in 

ejectment was brought by an agent pursuant to a limited 

power of attorney which does not grant to the agent the

authority to bring post-foreclosure actions in ejectment 

or otherwise, the trial court abused its discretion and/or 

committed errors of law by overruling the defendants’ 

preliminary objections and granting plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment. 

3. Whether, where the plaintiff failed to attach a valid and 

complete abstract of title to its ejectment complaint, the 

trial court abused its discretion and/or committed errors 

of law by overruling the defendants’ preliminary 

objections and granting plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment. 

Defendants’ Brief at 8.

Our standard of review of an appeal from an order granting summary 

judgment is well settled: 

Summary judgment may be granted only in the clearest of 

cases where the record shows that there are no genuine

issues of material fact and also demonstrates that the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact is a 

question of law, and therefore our standard of review is de 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court did not order Defendants to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement 

of errors complained of on appeal. 
J-A04039-20

- 4 -

novo and our scope of review is plenary. When reviewing a 

grant of summary judgment, we must examine the record 

in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Reason v. Kathryn's Korner Thrift Shop, 169 A.3d 96, 100 (Pa. Super. 

2017) (internal citations omitted). 

Defendants’ first and second issues can be discussed together. 

Defendants, in their brief, set out excerpts from their various pleadings under 

their first issue heading. Defendants conclude that a genuine issue of material 

fact existed as to whether Bayview had the authority to bring the current 

action. However, Defendants do not provide an argument on this point under 

this heading, but rather discuss Bayview’s authority under their second issue 

heading. Therefore, we will discuss the first two issues as one. Defendants 

argue that Bayview lacked the authority to sign the verification on behalf of 

Plaintiff, in violation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1024, and accordingly the trial court erred 

in granting summary judgment. 

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1024 states: 

(a) Every pleading containing an averment of fact not 

appearing of record in the action or containing a denial of 

fact shall state that the averment or denial is true upon the 

signer's personal knowledge or information and belief and 

shall be verified. The signer need not aver the source of the 

information or expectation of ability to prove the averment 

or denial at the trial. A pleading may be verified upon 

personal knowledge as to a part and upon information and 

belief as to the remainder. . . . 

(c) The verification shall be made by one or more of the 

parties filing the pleading unless all the parties (1) lack 

sufficient knowledge or information, or (2) are outside the 

jurisdiction of the court and the verification of none of them 

can be obtained within the time allowed for filing the 
J-A04039-20

- 5 -

pleading. In such cases, the verification may be made by 

any person having sufficient knowledge or information and 

belief and shall set forth the source of the person's 

information as to matters not stated upon his or her own 

knowledge and the reason why the verification is not made 

by a party.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1024. Any person, including an attorney for a party, may verify 

on behalf of another party, provided that person does so only in those cases 

in which the conditions delineated in Rule 1024 are present. JP Morgan 

Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation 

omitted). 

Verification is necessary to defend a party against spurious 

allegations; it must not be transformed into an offensive 

weapon designed to strike down an otherwise valid petition. 

While we do not, of course, condone willful noncompliance 

with our procedural rules, a hypertechnical reading of each 

clause, and a blind insistence on precise, formal adherance, 

benefits neither the judicial system nor those utilizing that 

system. [C]ourts should not be astute in enforcing 

technicalities to defeat apparently meritorious claims.

Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. 

Super. 1979) (this Court reversed dismissal of a petition where verification 

alleged party did not have knowledge but did not allege party was without 

sufficient information). 

The verification is signed by the Vice President of Bayview Loan 

Servicing, as attorney-in-fact for Plaintiff, and states that Bayview has been 

authorized to make the verification on behalf of Plaintiff. The verification 

states that Plaintiff “lacks the sufficient knowledge or information to make this 

verification” because it delegated the servicing activities to Bayview, its 
J-A04039-20

- 6 -

attorney-in-fact. The verification states, “the undersigned is fully familiar with 

the statements made in the complaint and verifies that the facts set forth in 

the amended complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, 

information and belief.” This satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1024. 

Defendants additionally argue that the limited power of attorney 

between Bayview and Plaintiff did not grant Bayview, as the agent and 

attorney-in-fact of Plaintiff, the authority to bring post-foreclosure actions, 

namely, an action in ejectment. In addition, Defendants argue that the power 

of attorney has expired. Defendants are challenging the validity of the power 

of attorney signed between Bayview and Plaintiff, namely, they are 

challenging the terms of the agreement. However, as Defendants are not a 

party to the power of attorney, Defendants do not have standing to challenge 

it. See Ira G. Steffy & Son, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, 7 

A.3d 278, 287–88 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellant had no rights under 

agreement between appellee and another party; appellant was not a third 

party beneficiary of contract between appellee and other party). E*Trade is 

the plaintiff bringing the ejectment action, therefore, it is not necessary that 

Bayview’s power of attorney give it authority to bring the action. Bayview is 

not the plaintiff bringing the ejectment action. 

Next, Defendants dispute the sufficiency of the abstract of title 

presented by Plaintiff in its complaint. In an action in ejectment, Pa.R.Civ.P. 

1054(b) provides: “A party shall set forth in the complaint or answer an 
J-A04039-20

- 7 -

abstract of the title upon which the party relies at least from the common 

source of the adverse titles of the parties.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1054(b). 

An abstract of title is simply a compilation in an abridged 

form of the record of the vendor's title; it is a summary of 

the most important parts of the deeds and other 

instruments comprising the evidences of title, arranged in 

chronological order, and intended to show the original 

source and incidents of title. [I]f the plaintiff's abstract 

reveals a defect in his chain of title, he will not have 

established a prima facie title, without which his claim must 

fail; the defendant need prove nothing. 

Busin v. Whiting, 535 A.2d 1078, 1080 (Pa. Super. 1987) (internal citations 

omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 570 A.2d 508 (Pa. 1989). 

Plaintiff complied with Pa.R.Civ.P. 1054(b). In its complaint, Plaintiff 

attached the Sheriff’s Deed, dated May 26, 2017, identifying the property in 

question, and stating that the property was vested in Matthew Grassa and 

Sandra Grassa by deed from Mark Fletcher Binnion, dated July 11, 2006, 

recorded July 12, 2006 in the Delaware County Office of the Recorder of Deeds 

in Deed Book 3850, Page 1209. See Amended Complaint, Exhibit pages 6-9 

(unpaginated). Plaintiff stated that an in rem judgment in mortgage 

foreclosure was entered against Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of 

Delaware County in Docket No. 12-5329. See Amended complaint at ¶ 4. 

Plaintiff attached the docket to its complaint. Next, Plaintiff stated that the 

subject premises was subjected to a Sheriff’s sale on April 21, 2017, that 

Plaintiff was the successful bidder at the Sheriff’s sale and attached the 

Sheriff’s Deed Poll to the complaint. Id. Plaintiff stated that the Sheriff’s 
J-A04039-20

- 8 -

Deed Poll was recorded on June 1, 2017 in the Office of the Recorder of 

Delaware County at Instrument No. 2017028402, Book No. 6006, Page 0159. 

Id. Plaintiff stated that the Sheriff’s Deed Poll represents the common source 

of the adverse titles to the Defendants and Plaintiff. Id. The complaint 

incorporates this deed by reference in accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(g). 

See id. (“a party may incorporate by reference ... any matter which is 

recorded or transcribed verbatim in the ... office of the ... recorder of deeds 

... of such county”). Plaintiff satisfied Pa.R.Civ.P. 1054(b) by showing the 

common source of the title in question. 

The verification to the complaint was sufficient under the Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Defendants’ arguments as to the limited power of attorney and 

abstract of title are meritless. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 05/12/2020