J-S28009-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CITIBANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR 

WAMU ASSET-BACKED 

CERTIFICATES, WAMU SERIES 2007-

HE2

v.

SARA STRANIERI 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1387 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered August 1, 2017

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

No(s): 2011-CV-3348

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED AUGUST 03, 2018

Appellant, Sara Stranieri, appeals pro se from an order entered on 

August 1, 2017 granting summary judgment in this mortgage foreclosure 

action in favor of Citibank, N.A. (Citibank). We affirm.

The trial court summarized the historical and procedural facts as follows:

[Appellant] borrowed the sum of $112,500.00 from Washington 

Mutual Bank (hereinafter “WaMu”) on or about January 9, 2007 

as evidenced by a promissory note and mortgage executed the 

same day and subsequently recorded in Lackawanna County on 

January 16, 2007. [Citibank’s] Motion for Summary Judgment,

3/2/17, para. 1-2. The mortgaged property at issue in this case 

is located at 1309-1311 Division Street in Scranton, Pennsylvania, 

and [Appellant] is the owner thereof according to deed dated 

January 9, 2007, also recorded January 16, 2007. Id. at para.

2-3. On or about September 25, 2008, WaMu was seized by the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “FDIC”), and 

its mortgages were transferred to JP Morgan Chase Bank[, 

National Association (“JP Morgan”)]. Id. at para. 5. [Appellant’s]
J-S28009-18

- 2 -

mortgage was assigned to [Citibank] by [JP Morgan] on or about 

December 9, 2010, recorded December 28, 2010, and this 

assignment was necessarily corrected on or about February 21, 

2013, recorded February 26, 2013. Id. at para. 4. As such, 

[Citibank] is the current mortgagee and holder of the promissory 

note initially executed by [Appellant], which requires monthly 

payments in the amount of $821.57. Id. at para. 6.

On or about August 1, 2010, [Appellant] defaulted on her 

mortgage payment, and she has failed to make any payments on 

the same to date. Id. at para. 7. Two and [one-]half months 

later, on October 15, 2010, [Citibank] sent [Appellant] the Notice 

of Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Act of 1983. Id.

at para. 8. [Appellant] filed for financial assistance, admitting 

within her application that her mortgage was in default. Id. at

para. 9. Her request was, however, denied. Id.

On May 31, 2011, [Citibank] filed its [c]omplaint in mortgage 

foreclosure, initiating the instant proceedings. Id. at para. 10. 

On October 26, 2011, [Appellant’s] [p]etition for a [p]rotective 

[o]rder was denied, and she was ordered to participate in the 

Lackawanna County Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion 

Program. Trial Court Order, 10/26/11. Following a routine 

conciliation conference, it was discovered that the property at 

issue in this case is an investment property and not [Appellant’s]

primary residence, making this matter ineligible for the diversion 

program. Trial Court Order, 12/16/11.

The case proceeded with preliminary objections having been filed 

and denied, and on December 26, 2013, [Appellant] filed her 

[a]nswer and [n]ew [m]atter[, asserting affirmative defenses]. 

[Citibank] responded and discovery ensued. Though [Citibank] 

timely responded to any and all [of Appellant’s] requests, 

[Appellant] failed to answer any discovery requests as required. 

[Citibank’s] Motion for Summary Judgment, 3/2/17, para. 25-27.

Ultimately, [Citibank] filed the instant [m]otion for [s]ummary 

[j]udgment on March 2, 2017, to which [Appellant] responded 

April 24, 2017. By letter dated May 11, 2017, Court 

Administration scheduled this case for [o]ral [a]rgument to 

proceed before this court [on] June 30, 2017. Letter of Court 

Administrator, 5/16/17. It specifically instructed [Citibank] to 

submit a brief by no later than May 30, 2017 and [Appellant] to 

submit a brief by June 19, 2017. [Citibank] complied by filing its 
J-S28009-18

- 3 -

brief contemporaneously with its motion; [Appellant] failed to 

submit a brief. Upon [Appellant’s] request, a continuance of [o]ral 

[a]rgument was granted, and the case was re-listed for August 1, 

2017. [Appellant] failed to appear, although her husband, who is 

not a party to this action, did appear. Th[e trial c]ourt granted 

summary judgment [on August 1, 2017] in the amount of 

$181,242.86 plus interest at a rate of $21.55 per diem from 

December 30, 2016 and costs[. Appellant filed a notice of appeal 

on August 30, 2017.]

Trial Court Opinion, 10/26/17, at 1-3.1

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether a complaint based solely upon inadmissible hearsay 

evidence, evidence which is deemed null and void, ab initio, is 

substantial evidence to obtain a favorable summary judgment 

[in] favor of the complainant, after the allegations are denied?

2. Whether the facts and the law of this case without any 

substantial evidence in support thereof, based solely on the 

pleadings without more, provide sufficient grounds to obtain a 

bona fide and valid summary judgment?

3. Whether any assignment of mortgage in isolation is null and 

void of law, ab initio?

4. Whether the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas is a 

Kangaroo Court, or a sham court, or a mock court and an 

incompetent court/tribunal sitting within or under a military 

jurisdiction, as evidenced by the law of the flag doctrine?

5. Whether the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas is a 

Coram Non Judice?

6. Whether the Summary Judgment is a “Brutum Fulmen” 

judgment and/or a void judgment?

7. Whether the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas acted 

in a manner consistent with civilian due process of law, based 

upon sufficient evidence to support an unsubstantiated claim 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court issued an opinion on October 26, 2017.
J-S28009-18

- 4 -

in a wrongful residential mortgage foreclosure case when 

[Citibank] admits in writing that it does not own the residential 

mortgage, the subject matter of this civil action?

Appellant’s Brief at 8-10.2

Appellant challenges an order granting summary judgment in favor of 

Citibank. In her first and second claims, Appellant asserts that the trial court 

improperly granted summary judgment based only on Citibank’s pleadings 

and oral argument. We disagree. 

Our standard of review for orders granting summary judgment is 

well-established:

[T]he trial court’s order will be reversed only where it is 

established that the court committed an error of law or abused its 

discretion.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly 

shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the 

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

reviewing court must view the record in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts as to the existence 

of a genuine issue of material fact against the nonmoving party. 

Only when the facts 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, 1043-1044 (Pa. 

Super. 2017) (citation omitted). Furthermore, summary judgment is 

appropriate in a mortgage foreclosure if there is no genuine dispute that: (1) 

the mortgage is in default; (2) the mortgagor failed to pay interest on the 

obligation; and (3) the recorded mortgage is in the specified amount. U.S. 

____________________________________________

2 We have re-ordered Appellant’s issues for ease of discussion.
J-S28009-18

- 5 -

Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 394, n.11 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation 

omitted).

A non-moving party who bears the burden of proof on an issue may not 

resist a motion for summary judgment by relying on its pleadings or general 

denials; instead, the non-moving party must provide sufficient evidence on 

issues for which it bears the burden of proof. See Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 

104 A.3d 556, 563 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“Failure of a non-moving party to 

adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he 

bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to 

judgment as a matter of law.”). General denials to a party’s complaint will be 

treated as admissions where specific denials are required. See Bank of 

America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462, 466-67 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal 

denied, 112 A.3d 648 (Pa. 2015). 

Appellant issued only general denials to Citibank’s complaint and failed 

to respond to discovery requests. Therefore, Appellant is deemed to have 

admitted that her mortgage was in default, that she failed to pay interest on 

the obligation, and that the recorded mortgage was in the specified amount. 

Given these admissions, the trial court correctly concluded that Appellant 

failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact and that Citibank was entitled 

to summary judgment as a matter of law.

In her third claim, Appellant argues that her mortgage was void since it

was not properly assigned to Citibank. Appellant, however, lacks standing to 
J-S28009-18

- 6 -

assert this claim. “If the borrower cannot demonstrate potential injury from 

the enforcement of the note and mortgage by a party acting under a defective 

assignment, the borrower lacks standing to raise the issue.” JP Morgan 

Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1264-1265 (Pa. Super. 2013), 

quoting In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 285-86 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 2012). Similar 

to Murray, Appellant cannot prove injury resulting from a defective 

assignment since she discharges her liability under the note by making the 

scheduled payments. Id. Even if Citibank did not have the right to receive 

the payments (due to defective assignment), it was the holder of the note, 

and the borrower cannot be harmed by paying the holder. Id.; see also 13 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3602(a). 

Appellant’s fourth, fifth, and sixth claims challenge the jurisdiction of the 

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, as well as the court’s exercise of 

personal jurisdiction over Appellant. These claims are also meritless. The 

Pennsylvania Constitution grants the Courts of Common Pleas original 

jurisdiction in all cases except as otherwise may be provided by law. Pa. Cons. 

Art. 5 § 5. Rule 1142 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides 

that a mortgage foreclosure action may only be brought in a county in which 

the land or part of the land is located. The property in this case is squarely 

located in Lackawanna County.3 In addition, Rules 410(a) and 400(a) of the 

____________________________________________

3

 The address is 1309-1311 Division Street in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
J-S28009-18

- 7 -

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that in all actions involving 

possession of real property, original service of process shall be made by the 

sheriff. Appellant was served in person by the Lackawanna County Sheriff’s 

Office on June 10, 2011. Certificate of Service, 6/10/11. Hence, Appellant’s 

fourth, fifth, and sixth issues merit no relief.

Finally, Appellant argues that she was denied due process of law. While 

the standard of due process can fluctuate depending on the proceeding, 

Appellant was clearly given due process here. If due process provides at least 

notice and an opportunity to be heard,4the trial court greatly exceeded that 

standard. Appellant participated in multiple hearings, filed many motions, 

pleadings, and responses, and (through extensions) received ample time to 

prepare and participate in the proceedings.5 It is worth noting that Appellant 

did not even file a brief in response to Citibank’s summary judgment motion, 

and failed to appear at oral argument. Appellant received her day in court. 

Judgment affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 Our Supreme Court has observed that the “basic elements of procedural due 

process are adequate notice, the opportunity to be heard, and the chance to 

defend oneself before a fair and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over the 

case.” Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 132 (Pa. 2008).

5 As our factual recitation makes clear, this foreclosure litigation has continued 

for over seven years.
J-S28009-18

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 08/03/2018