J

### -A10023-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIOR COURT 

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

v.

KENNETHTAGGART, IN THE SUPERIOR COURTOF PENNSYLVANIA



### Appellant : No. 1384 EDA 2018 Appeal 

### from the Order Dated March 27, 2018 In the Court 

### of Common Pleas 

### of Montgomery CountyCivil Division at No(s): No. 

### 2010-08638
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: 

### FILED AUGUST 1, 

### 2019 Kenneth 

### Taggart appeals the 

### order entered on March 27, 2018, in the CourtofCommon Pleas

### ofMontgomery County. The

### court grantedWells Fargo Bank N.A.'s ("Wells Fargo") motion 

### forsummary

### judgment againstTaggart in

a 

### mortgageforeclosureaction. On appeal,

### Taggartargues

### the

### trialcourterred
in 

### grantingsummary

### judgment because (1) Wells Fargodid not provide 

### proper notice of 

### default and 

### intent to file the 

### complaint; (2) the 

### mortgage note was not legally 

### perfected; (3) the 

### mortgage did not namethe 

### correct lender; and (4) Wells Fargo lacked 

### standing.' On June 14, 2019, 

### Taggart filed a 

### motion



### ' Taggart's 

### first issue in both his Rule 

### 1925(b) 

### statement and in his 

### brief is 

### that the 

### trial court erred in 

### granting summary 

### judgment. See Concise 

### Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 

### 5/21/2018, at 

### unnumbered page 1; 

### Taggart's Brief, at 2. In it, 

### Taggart baldy alleges

### that the 

### trial courtJ

### -A10023-19

to 

### take

### judicial notice. Based upon the

### following,we 

### affirmthe decision ofthe 

### trial court and deny

### Taggart's applicationfor relief in the form of a 

### motion to 

### take

### judicial notice. The 

### trial court set 

### out the relevant facts and procedural 

### history as 

### follows: This action in 

### mortgage foreclosure came before the 

### [the trial 

### c]ourt on cross

### -motions of the parties 

### for summary judgment. The record as developed in those motions disclosesthe following undisputed facts: On December 16, 2008, 

### [Taggart] executed a 

### [m]ortgage on 

### property located 

### at 709 Schwab Road, 

### Hatfield, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The 

### instrument identifies the lender and 

### mortgagee as

### "American Partners 

### Bank."[a] 

### It provides

### that before

erred in 

### grantingWells Fargo's

### motion

### forsummary

### judgmentand denying his 

### motion

### forsummary

### judgment. 

### Id. However, under 

### this heading in the body ofthe brief,

### Taggartargues a 

### variety ofissues, 

### including,

### thatthere are

### errors in 

### the description of the 

### property, various deficiencies in the 

### complaint, alleged 

### errors in 

### evidentiary rulings, and 

### duplicationsof

### arguments made 

### later in the brief. 

### Taggart's Brief, at 

### 7-24. We note

### that,

### "[a] concise 

### statementof 

### [errors] complained of on appeal 

### must be specific enough to 

### identify and address each issue the 

### appellant wishes to raise on appeal. 

### Mazurek v. 

### Russell, 96 A.3d 372, 377 (Pa. Super. 

### 2014). An 

### overly vague or broad 

### statement of 

### matters complained of on appeal may result in 

### waiver. 

### Majorskyv.

### Douglas, 58A.3d 1250, 1258 (Pa. Super. 

### 2012),appealdenied, 70A.3d 811 (Pa. 

### 2013). "When a 

### court hasto guess

### what issues an 

### appellant is appealing, 

### that is not enough

### for meaningful 

### review." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### McCree, 857 A.2d 188, 192 (Pa. Super. 2004) 

### (citation 

### omitted), affirmed, 924 A.2d 621 (Pa. 

### 2007). Here, the 

### trial court in its Rule 

### 1925(a) opinion addressed 

### Taggart's 

### first issue as 

### follows, 

### "[Issue 1] is generic and need not be addressed beyond the discussion below of the 

### other 

### items." Trial Court Opinion, 

### 7/02/2018, at n. 5. Thus, the

### trial courtwas unable to discern 

### from Taggart'svague claim, the issues he now argues in his brief. 

### Accordingly, we find

### thatTaggart's

### first issue is bothwaived and 

### duplicative; wewill not

### further discuss it. 

### See

### Mazurek,supra at 

### 377; 

### Majorsky, supraat 1258.

- 2 -J

### -A10023-19

exercising its remedies in 

### the event of 

### default by 

### [Taggart], the lender 

### must send him 

### written notice of the 

### default and an 

### opportunity to cure it. 

### [Taggart] failed to make the 

### monthly payment due on December 1, 2009, and the payments due 

### thereafter. [Taggart] does not 

### dispute his 

### failure to make such 

### payments, although he contends 

### that such 

### failure does not 

### constitute a 

### default under the 

### [m]ortgage, for reasons discussed below. [a] 

### Technically speaking, the 

### [m]ortgage identifies "American Partners Bank" as the 

### "Lender," and it 

### identifies as 

### the mortgagee "Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

. . . solely as nominee 

### for Lender and Lender's successors and 

### assigns." For purposes of

### [Taggart's] challengeto the

### validityofthe 

### [m]ortgage, the parties have 

### treated "American Partners Bank" as the mortgagee, and this 

### [o]pinion does the same. A copy of anAct 91 Notice sentto 

### [Taggart] is attached to [Wells Fargo's] 

### [m]otionfor 

### [s]ummary 

### [j]udgment as Exhibit D. A copy oftheenvelope, included in the

### exhibit, shows

### that itwas sent by 

### certified mail to 

### [Taggart] at the address of the 

### mortgaged 

### property, with a postage 

### meter date of February 10, 2010. Notations by the postal 

### authorities show a 

### "first notice" of the 

### certified mailing on 

### "2/13" and a "second 

### notice" on 

### "2-18"; the envelope is stamped as 

### "unclaimed"and shows a 

### "returned" date of 

### "3-2" (capitalization 

### omitted). The Act 91 Notice states 

### that [Taggart] is in 

### default, 

### that he may cure the 

### default by paying specified 

### amounts 

### within 

### thirty days, and 

### that if he fails to cure, the 

### entire balance 

### ofthe debt will be due and owing. [Wells Fargo] filed its 

### [c]omplaint in 

### [m]ortgage [f]oreclosure on April 1, 2010. The 

### [c]omplaint alleged 

### that

### "[t]he Plaintiff is now the legal 

### owner of the 

### mortgage and is in the process 

### of formalizing an 

### assignmentofsame." On January 7, 2016, [Wells Fargo] recorded an 

### instrument entitled CorrectiveAssignment of Mortgage, 

### reflecting an 

### assignment of the 

### [m]ortgage from "Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 

### Inc., as nominee 

### for American Partners Bank, its successors and assigns" to Wells Fargo Bank N.A.[b] 

## -3J

### -A10023-19

[b] The 

### [c]orrective [a]ssignment recites 

### that a previous 

### [a]ssignment had been recorded on May 18, 2010, but was being corrected because 

### "that Assignment incorrectly shows the Assignor to be Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. whereas it should show Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 

### Inc., as nominee 

### forAmerican Partners Bank, its successors and 

### assigns." 

### [Taggart] created an 

### extensive record on the 

### relevant history of American Partners Bank. Specifically, Exhibit F to 

### [Taggart's] 

### [m]otion for 

### [s]ummary 

### [j]udgment is an 

### [a]udit [r]eport issued by the Office of 

### Inspector General of the 

### Treasury Department, entitled 

### "Safety and Soundness: In

### -Depth Review of 

### Waterfield Bank," dated July 14, 2011 

### (hereinafter, "Audit Report"). The 

### Audit Report recitesthe 

### following history: 

### Waterfield Bank's 

### History Since the 

### institution's inception in 2000, Waterfield Bank has changed 

### ownership 

### threetimes. 

### Initially, it opened on June 12, 2000, as Assurance Partners Bank, a federal chartered de novo 

### thrift in Carmel, 

### Indiana.

. . . On April 8, 2005, Federal City Bancorp, Inc. acquired a 

### controlling 

### interest in the 

### institution via a 

### private placement. The 

### headquarters were relocated to Bethesda, Maryland, and the name was changed to American Partners Bank.

. . .

On January 16, 2008,

### Affinity [Financial 

### Corporation, 

### Inc.] acquired Federal City Bancorp, Inc. and infused $20 

### million in American Partners Bank. The 

### institution's name was 

### changed to 

### Waterfield Bank and a new board of 

### directors and 

### managementteam were 

### installed.[] [Taggart] filed his 

### [m]otionfor 

### [s]ummary [j]udgment on May 12, 2017. [Wells Fargo] filed its own 

### [m]otion for 

### [s]ummary

- 4 -J

### -A10023-19



### [j]udgment on November 7, 2017. The 

### [m]otions were 

### fully briefed, andoral 

### argumentwas held on March 26, 2018. On March 27, 2018, 

### [o]rderswere issued denying 

### [Taggart's] 

### [m]otion and 

### granting [Wells Fargo's] 

### [m]otion;the 

### latter 

### [o]rderentered an in 

### rem 

### judgment against 

### [Taggart] for foreclosure and sale 

### of the mortgaged property. OnApril23, 2018, 

### [Taggart]filed a 

### [m]otion for [r]econsideration of the 

### [o]rder granting summary

### judgment in 

### favor of [Wells Fargo]. 

### That 

### [m]otion was denied by 

### [o]rder dated April 24,2018.[d]

[C] A 

### [c]ertification from the Federal Deposit 

### Insurance Corporation, also 

### submitted by 

### [Taggart], is to the same 

### effect: 

### "[EJffective February 1, 2006,Assurance Partners Bank changed 

### title to American Partners Bank

. . 

### .[;] effective January 21, 2008, American Partners Bank changed 

### title to 

### Waterfield Bank." 

### [Taggart] acknowledges

### that Waterfield Bank had the same FDIC 

### number asAmerican Partners Bank. [d] Several 

### other filings deserve 

### brief mention. On December 18, 2017, 

### [Taggart] (acting 

### pro se, 

### although represented by counsel) filed a 

### document entitled Notice 

### of Fraud, 

### attaching a 

### letter addressed to several 

### government officials complaining of [Wells Fargo's] alleged fraud in relying on a 

### [m]ortgagethat [Taggart] claimed to be invalid. On January22, 2018, [Wells Fargo] filed a 

### [m]otion to 

### [s]trike the 

### [n]otice of 

### [f]raud. In 

### addition, on March 23 and 26, 2018, 

### [Taggart] (again acting 

### pro se) filed seven 

### [m]otions to 

### [t]ake [j]udicial [n]otice ofdocuments described as 

### follows: public records 

### of the Federal Deposit 

### Insurance Corporation, public records of the Federal Reserve Board, a 

### certification ofthe Federal Deposit 

### InsuranceCorporation, a

### certificate of

### theOffice ofthe 

### Comptroller of Currency, the 

### Audit Report referred to above, a 

### [p]etition for 

### [w]rit of 

### [m]andamus filed by 

### [Taggart] in federal court, and a 

### [c]omplaint filed by 

### [Taggart] in federal 

### courtagainst 

### [thetrial 

### c]ourtand the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On March 27, 2018, the same day

### thatthe 

### [m]otionsfor 

### [s]ummary 

### [j]udgment were decided, 

### [the trial 

### c]ourt dismissed 

### [Taggart's] 

### [m]otion to 

### [s]trike as moot. Also on

### that

- 5 -J

### -A10023-19

date, the 

### [trial c]ourt denied 

### [Taggart's] 

### [m]otions to 

### [t]ake [j]udicial [n]otice. The 

### [o]rder noted 

### that the 

### [m]otions to 

### [t]ake [j]udicial [n]oticewere

### improperly filed by 

### [Taggart] pro se, even 

### though he was represented by counsel. 

### Further,theOrderexplained: To the

### extent

### thatthedocuments

### thatare the subjects of the seven 

### [m]otions are attached as 

### exhibits to 

### [Taggrt's] 

### [m]otionfor 

### [s]ummary[j]udgment or his opposition to [Wells Fargo's] 

### [m]otion for [s]ummary 

### [j]udgment, a separate request to 

### take 

### judicial notice of such 

### documents is unnecessary, as

### the exhibits are 

### already part of the record. To the 

### extent 

### that such 

### documents, issued by 

### government agencies, are not 

### already exhibits, 

### they are 

### redundant and 

### cumulative, as 

### the fact of the name changeofthe bank is 

### alreadyestablished. To the 

### extent 

### that [Taggart] requests 

### judicial notice of 

### filings made by him in Federal Court, 

### they are 

### irrelevant to 

### the proceedings before this Court. 

### [Taggart's] subsequently filed 

### [n]otice of 

### [a]ppeal states 

### that he is appealing 

### "from the 

### order(s) signed on March 27, 2018 and April 24, 

### 2018," which 

### might be construed to includethetwo 

### [o]rders referred to in this 

### footnote. The 

### [o]rders are not 

### mentioned, however, in his 

### [c]oncise 

### [s]tatement of 

### [errors] [c]omplained of on 

### [a]ppeal, and 

### therefore they are not addressed 

### further in 

### this 

### [o]pinion. [Taggart] filed a 

### [timely] [n]otice of 

### [a]ppeal onApril 26, 2018,[2] and 

### subsequently filed a 

### timely [c]oncise 

### [s]tatement of 

### [errors]

2 On June 19, 2018, 

### this Court issued a rule to show cause as to 

### why we should not quash 

### the appeal as 

### untimely. Taggart filed a response on June 28, 2018. On July5, 2018,this Courtdischargedthe ruleto showcause. Our 

## -6J

### -A10023-19

[c]omplained of on 

### [a]ppeal. On July 2, 2018, the 

### trial court issued an 

### opinion.] Trial Court Opinion, 

### 7/02/2018, at 1-5 (record 

### citations 

### omitted, emphasis in 

### original). 

### Initially, we note 

### that, on June 14, 2019, more than one 

### month 

### after oral 

### argument and submission of

### this case to the 

### merits panel, 

### Taggart filed

an 

### application 

### for relief in the form of a 

### motion to 

### take

### judicial notice. The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure

### provide: 

### (a) General 

### rule. After the 

### argument of a case has been concluded orthe case has been 

### submitted, no brief, memorandum or 

### letter relating to the case shall be presented or 

### submitted, either directly or 

### indirectly, to the 

### court or any 

### judge thereof, except upon 

### application or when expressly allowed at bar at the 

### time ofthe 

### argument. 

### (b) Change in 

### status 

### of authorities. If any case or 

### other 

### authority relied upon in the 

### brief of a 

### party is 

### expressly reversed, modified, overruled orotherwiseaffected so asto 

### materially affect its 

### status as an 

### authoritative statement of the law 

### for which 

### originally cited in 

### the

### jurisdiction in which it was decided, enacted or 

### promulgated, anycounsel having knowledge

### thereofshall file a 

### letter, which shall not contain any 

### argument, 

### transmitting a copy ofthe slip opinion or 

### other documentwherein the 

### authority relied upon wasaffected. Pa.R.A.P. 

### 2501(a) and (b). Here, 

### Taggart's application does not allege any change in the status of

### authorities and is 

### merely a 

### reiteration and expansion of the 

### arguments made in both his 

### brief and his 

### reply brief. Moreover, his

review of the record 

### demonstrates 

### that Taggart 

### timely filed his notice of appeal. 

## -7J

### -A10023-19

application does not 

### comply with Pennsylvania Rule 

### of Evidence 201, which sets 

### forth the 

### criteria for taking 

### judicial notice. 

### Accordingly, we deny the application. On appeal, 

### Taggart raises 

### five issues in 

### support of his 

### contention 

### that the 

### trial court erred in 

### granting Wells Fargo's 

### motion

### forsummary

### judgment. SeeTaggart's Brief at 2. We have disposed of the

### first issue; we

### summarize his 

### arguments on 

### the remaining issues as follows. The 

### trial court erred in 

### granting summary

### judgment because Wells Fargo did not 

### properly serve the Act 91 Notice. 

### See 

### id. At 

### 24-33. The 

### trial courterred in 

### granting summary 

### judgment because the 

### mortgage and note were not perfected because 

### "American Partners Bank F.S.B." did not legally 

### exist 

### afterJanuary 16, 2008. 

### See

### id. at 

### 33-37. The

### trial courtshould not have

### granted 

### summary

### judgment because

### Waterfield Bankwas notthe 

### original lender. 

### See

### id. at

### 37-38. Lastly, 

### Taggart's claims 

### that the 

### trial court erred in 

### granting summary 

### judgment because Wells Fargo lacked standing as a real 

### party in 

### interest because itwas notthe holder in due course and not a 

### partyentitled to enforce the 

### mortgage. See 

### id. at 

### 38-46. Ourstandard of review is well 

### settled: 

### [o]ur scope 

### of review of a 

### trial court's order granting or denying 

### summary

### judgment is 

### plenary,and ourstandard ofreview isclear: the 

### trial court's orderwill be reversed onlywhere it is established 

### that the 

### court committed an 

### error of law orabused its 

### discretion.


## -8J

### -A10023-19

Summary

### judgment is 

### appropriate only when the record 

### clearly shows

### thatthere is no genuine issue 

### of material fact and 

### that the moving 

### party is 

### entitled to 

### judgment as a 

### matter of law. The reviewing 

### court mustview the record in the 

### light most favorable to the nonmoving 

### party and resolve all doubts asto the existence of a genuine issue

### of material factagainstthe moving party. Only when thefacts are so clear

### that reasonable minds could not

### differ can a 

### trial court properly enter summary

### judgment. 

### Bayview Loan 

### Servicing LLC v. 

### Wicker, 163 A.3d 1039, 

### 1043-44 (Pa. Super. 2017) 

### (citation 

### omitted), affirmed, 206 A.3d 474 (Pa. 

### 2019). Moreover, 

### "[i]n response to a 

### summary 

### judgment motion, the nonmoving 

### party cannot rest upon the pleadings, but 

### rather must set

### forth specific facts 

### demonstrating a genuine issue of 

### material 

### fact." 

### Bank 

## ofAm., N.A. v. 

### Gibson, 102 A.3d 

### 462, 464 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

### (citation 

### omitted), appeal denied, 112 A.3d 648 (Pa. 

### 2015). We have also 

### stated, 

### "[t]he holder of a 

### mortgage has

### the

### right, upon 

### default, to bring a

### foreclosure action. The holder of a 

### mortgage is 

### entitled to 

### summary

### judgment if the 

### mortgagor admits 

### that the mortgage is in 

### default, the 

### mortgagor has failed to pay on the 

### obligation, and the recorded 

### mortgage is in the specified 

### amount." 

### Id. at 

### 464-465 (citation omitted). "This is so even if the 

### mortgagors have not 

### admitted the 

### total amount of the indebtedness in 

### their pleadings." 

### Cunningham v. 

### McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054, 1057 (Pa. Super. 

### 1998), appeal denied, 734 A.2d 861 (Pa. 1999).



## -9J

### -A10023-19

Here, the

### trial court in its Rule 

### 1925(a) opinion provided a 

### thorough and well-reasoned discussion 

### of Taggart's second3 

### through 

### fifth arguments on appeal. 

### SeeTrial Court Opinion, 

### 7/02/2018, at 1-10 

### (finding (1)the use

### of an old version of the bank's name on the 

### mortgage did not 

### render it void;4 (2)

3 We 

### briefly note 

### that, to 

### the 

### extent 

### that Taggart is contending 

### that Wells Fargo did not serve 

### the Act 91 Notice at his last known address 

### rather than 

### that they did not serve at the 

### mortgaged 

### property, he has waived the claim. As Wells Fargo 

### correctly notes, and as our review of the certified record 

### demonstrates, Taggart did not raise 

### this 

### argument in 

### either his 

### motion 

### for summary

### judgment or in his response to Wells Fargo's 

### motion 

### for summary 

### judgment, instead he raised it 

### for the 

### first time in his 

### motion 

### for reconsideration. 

### See Wells Fargo's Brief, at 

### 25-27 (citing to 

### certified record). We have held both 

### that a 

### party cannot raise 

### arguments not raised in opposition 

### for summary 

### judgment to challenge the 

### grant of 

### summary 

### judgment for the 

### first time on appeal and 

### that a 

### party cannot raise an 

### argumentforthe

### firsttime in a 

### motion

### for reconsideration. 

### Krentzv. 

### Consol. 

### Rail Corp., 910 A.2d 20, 37 (Pa. 2006) 

### (citation 

### omitted)("arguments not raised 

### initially beforethe

### trialcourt in

### oppositionto 

### summary

### judgmentcannot be raised 

### forthe 

### firsttime on 

### appeal."); 

### Kellyv. 

### Siuma, 34 A.3d 86, 94 n. 8 (Pa. Super. 

### 2011) (holding

### trial courtproperly refused to consider issue raised 

### for 

### first time in 

### motion 

### for reconsideration),appeal denied, 42 A.3d 294 (Pa. 

### 2012).

4 In its discussion of

### Taggart's related 

### third and 

### fourth contentions, the 

### trial court relies upon a Court of Common Pleas case, 

### Mercer v. 

### Santa Lucia

## of Hillsville, 82 Pa. D. & C. 233 (Lawrence, 

### 1952), as well as several 

### out-ofstate cases. We havestated 

### that, 

### "court ofcommon pleas decisions 

### provide, at 

### most, persuasive but not binding 

### authority." Sears, 

### Roebuck & Co. v. 69th 

### St. 

### RetailMall, L.P., 126 A.3d 959, 972 (Pa. Super. 

### 2015). Moreover, 

### "[t]he decisions of courts of 

### other states are persuasive, but not binding, 

### authority." 

### Huber v. 

### Etkin, 58A.3d 772, 780 n.8 (Pa. Super. 

### 2012) 

### (citation 

### omitted), appeal denied, 68 A.3d 909 (Pa. 

### 2012). We have been unable to discover any 

### pertinent decisions by 

### this Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on 

### the related issues and find the law cited by the 

### trial court to be persuasive. Moreover, in his underdeveloped 

### argument,Taggart hasfailed to

- 10 -J

### -A10023-19

American Partners Bank is an 

### older name

### for Waterfield Bank and 

### they used thesame FDIC 

### number; (3) Wells Fargo 

### properlyserved the notice of

### default; and (4) Wells Fargo had 

### standing.) Our review of the record reveals ample 

### support for the trial court's conclusions. 

### Accordingly,we 

### adoptthe reasoning ofthe 

### trial court and 

### affirm its 

### order in 

### favorofWells Fargo. Order 

### affirmed. Application for relief in the 

### form of a 

### motion to 

### take 

### judicial notice denied. 

### Judgment Entered.


### Jseph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary

Date: 

### 8/1/19

cite to any legal 

### authority in 

### support of his 

### contentions and has 

### completely failed to address the lawcited bythe

### trial court in 

### supportof its decision. The burden is on 

### Taggart to 

### demonstrate 

### that the 

### trial court either abused its 

### discretion or

### committed an 

### errorof law. 

### It is also his burden, not

### this Court's, to 

### support 

### that argument with relevant authority. See 

### Hackett v. 

### Indian King ResidentsAssoc., 195 A.3d 248, 

### 254-255 (Pa. Super. 

### 2018) (holding it is 

### appellant's responsibility to develop 

### argument with citation to 

### relevant supporting 

### authority).