Court Opinion

ID: 9889865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 17:10:55.151581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:05.838521
License: Public Domain

J-S36002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 CHRISTIANA TRUST, A DIVISION OF          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 WILMINGTON SAVINGS,                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
 WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND                  :
 SOCIETY FSB, AND MTGLQ                   :
 INVESTORS LP                             :
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
 CALVIN FIELDING, SR.                     :
                                          :   No. 3118 EDA 2022
                    Appellant             :

             Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 170402857

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                          FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023

      Calvin Fielding, Sr., appeals pro se from the order denying his petition

to set aside the sheriff’s sale of his foreclosed-upon property. We affirm.

      We glean the following case history from the trial court opinion.       In

2006, Mr. Fielding took out a $96,000 loan secured by real property situated

in Philadelphia. Although Mr. Fielding promptly signed a notice of recission on

the day he received the funds, he did not follow through with the recission by

returning the money. The mortgage was assigned in 2007. Appellant stopped

making payments in 2009, notice of intent to foreclose was sent in 2013, and

the mortgage was reassigned to Christiana Trust, which initiated foreclosure

proceedings in 2017. MTGLQ Investors, LP, became the plaintiff in the action

and obtained a verdict and in rem judgment. Mr. Fielding filed no post-trial
J-S36002-23

motions, which resulted in his subsequent appeal being dismissed for failure

to preserve any claims.      MTGLQ initiated execution proceedings on its

judgment, which were delayed by Mr. Fielding’s opposition and the COVID-19

pandemic.

      A sheriff’s sale was eventually scheduled for October 4, 2022.         Mr.

Fielding filed an eleventh-hour emergency petition to stay it. The trial court

held a hearing at which Mr. Fielding sought to relitigate the foreclosure action,

reasserting the same defenses that had been rejected at trial. Finding that

Mr. Fielding had “zero credible basis for his requested relief,” the trial court

denied the petition. Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/23, at 5. The property was sold

at auction the same day.

      On October 17, 2022, Mr. Fielding filed a motion to set aside the sheriff’s

sale, reiterating the same previously-rejected arguments about the validity of

the foreclosure judgment.     The trial court denied the motion by order of

November 10, 2022. This timely appeal followed, and both Mr. Fielding and

the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.        Mr. Fielding presents the

following questions for our review, which we have re-ordered for ease of

disposition:

      1.    Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
      aside the sale, giving no basis for the denial and dismissal?

      2.    Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
      aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to
      proceed because a loan modification was offered and pending?

                                      -2-
J-S36002-23

      3.    Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
      aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to
      proceed because it was a breach of contract?

      4.    Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
      aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to
      proceed because the plaintiff admitted they never sent a correct
      notice of intent to foreclose?

      5.    Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
      aside the sale, because the plaintiff lacked standing?

      6.    Whether the trial court erred in failing to properly attach an
      opinion?

Mr. Fielding’s brief at 2-3 (cleaned up).

      The following principles govern our review:

      We will not reverse a trial court’s decision regarding whether to
      set aside a sheriff’s sale absent a clear abuse of discretion. An
      abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in
      reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the
      judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the judgment
      is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by
      the evidence of record, discretion is abused.

      A petition to set aside a sheriff’s sale is grounded in equitable
      principles.  The petitioner bears the burden of establishing
      grounds for relief.

LSF8 Master Participation Tr. v. Petrosky, 271 A.3d 1288, 1291

(Pa.Super. 2022).

      Upon a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and

the applicable law, we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion on the

part of the trial court as to the issues raised by Mr. Fielding, and we affirm the

order on the basis of the cogent opinion that the Honorable Anne Marie B.

                                      -3-
J-S36002-23

Coyle issued on May 2, 2022.1 Specifically, Judge Coyle properly concluded

that Mr. Fielding was well-aware of the court’s basis for rejecting his

arguments based upon the prior proceedings, and that no statute or court rule

required the preparation of an opinion explaining the denial of Mr. Fielding’s

motion prior to the appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/23, at 6-7. Further,

Judge Coyle acted well within her discretion in determining that Mr. Fielding

presented no evidence to invoke the court’s equitable powers to stay the sale.

Id. at 8-9.

       In short, Mr. Fielding had the opportunity to obtain appellate review of

his issues concerning the validity of the mortgage foreclosure action and

judgment in an appeal therefrom. He squandered that opportunity by failing

to preserve the issues such that his appeal was dismissed. The trial court

properly concluded that his collateral attack upon that judgment via the

petition to set aside the sale is untenable. No relief is due.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

1 MTGLQ argues that Mr. Fielding’s arguments are waived because he failed

to properly: (1) preserve them in a post-trial motion or develop them in his
brief, (2) cite pertinent authorities within his brief, or (3) ensure inclusion
within the certified record of that the transcript of the hearing on the motion
denied in the appealed-from order. See Appellee’s brief at 12-13. Instead of
finding waiver, we have considered Mr. Fielding’s arguments to the extent that
his brief and the certified record before us permits and have concluded that
the trial court’s opinion ably disposes of them.

                                           -4-
J-S36002-23

Date: October 11, 2023

                         -5-
                                                                                              Circulated 09/28/2023 06:48 PM

          IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
                  FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                            TRIAL DIVISION
                                  DIVISION —
                                           -- CIVIL

CHRISTIANA TRUST, A    A DIVISION
OF WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND                                    APRIL TERM 2017
                                                              NO.-
                                                              NO.20857

                                                                                                              -- -' ,_·-
SOCIETY, FSB, AND
               ANDMTGLQ                                            20857

INVESTORS
INVESTORS LP,                                                      0857
                                                                   00857
                                                                                                              N     ,.a
                                                                                                                    S•7

           Plaintiff(s)

                                                                                                     -
                                                                                                              ra   '•
                                                                                                              •     •
                                                                                                                    €;C-

                                                                                                   "TI7
                                                                                                      1

                                                                                                                    --
                                                                                                              ze   . •-r
        V.

CALVIN FIELDING,
       FIELDING, SR.,
                                                              SUPERIOR COURT
                                                              NO. 3118 EDA 2022                    -
                                                                                                   7

                                                                                                   t '
                                                                                                   +di9tL:A
                                                                                                              �
                                                                                                              r
                                                                                                                   £
                                                                                                                       w7

                                                                                                                          g
                                                                                                                          ·o
                                                                                                   rt.        �      74
                 Defendant
                 Defendant                                                                                          . 0
                                                                                                   c;1              .,' _'U)
                                                                                                              �
                                                                                                              cn
                                                                                                              W
                                                                                                              0.
                                                   OPINION

        Appellant,
        Appellant, Calvin Fielding,
                          Fielding, Sr., the Defendant in the above-captioned mortgage foreclosure

      action, seeks
civil action, seeks review
                    review of
                           of the Order that
                                        that had been
                                                 been entered
                                                      entered on November
                                                                 November 10,
                                                                          10, 2022,
                                                                              2022, by the
                                                                                       the

Honorable
Honorable Anne Marie B. Coyle,
                        Coyle, presiding
                               presiding as Judge of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania,

Court of
Court of Common Pleas,
                Pleas, Civil Division, hereinafter
                                       hereinafter referred to
                                                            to as
                                                               as ""this
                                                                    this Court," denying

Appellant's Petition
Appellant's Petition to Set Aside the Sheriff's
                                      Sheriffs Sale' for property located at 7153 N. 19th
                                                                                     I9th St.,

Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, PA 19126. Review of the record reveals that Calvin Fielding, Sr. failed to introduce

any evidence that had warranted this Court exercising its equitable powers
any                                                                 powers to set aside the subject

sale of the property
            property located at 7153 N. 19th St.,
                                             St,, Philadelphia, PA 19126 on October 4, 2022 by the

City of
City of Philadelphia Sheriff'ss Department.
        Philadelphia Sheriff    Department.

                                                              OPFLD-Christiana Trust
                                                              0PFLD-Christiana       Vs Fielding
                                                                               Trust Vs Fielding

                                                              1 1 1 1III
                                                              III    1 1 1 1 1 1IHI
                                                                                111111111
                                                                     17040285700146

IAppellant in his respective
'Appellant                    filings has interchangeably
                   respective filings     interchangeably referenced the subject pleading as both a
                                                                                                  a Motion to Stay the
Sale and a
         a Petition to Set Aside Sheriff Sale.
                                         Sale

                                                          1
FACTUAL
FACTUAL AND
        AND PROCEDURAL
            PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                       HISTORY

       On September
       On September 18,
                    18, 2006
                        2006 Appellant Calvin Fielding,
                             Appellant Calvin Fielding, Sr. signed,and
                                                        Sr. signed and executed
                                                                       executed a
                                                                                apromissory
                                                                                  promissory

note ("Note") secured by
note ("Note")         by aamortgage
                           mortgage ("Mortgage")
                                    ("Mortgage") loan in the amount of
                                                                    of $96,000, to refinance the

real property
real property located at 7153 N.
                              N, 19th
                                 19h St., Philadelphia,
                                          Philadelphia, PA 19126, hereinafter the
                                                                              the"Property,"
                                                                                  Property," with

Mortgage
Mortgage Lenders
         Lenders Network,
                 Network, USA.
                          USA. See Procedural
                                   Procedural and factual
                                                  factual history
                                                          history recorded
                                                                  recorded in
                                                                           in MTGLQ
                                                                              MTGLO

Investors,
Investors, LP v.». Fielding,
                   Fielding, Sr.,
                             Sr,, 2020 WL 8024774, at
                                                   at *I1 (Pa.Com.Pl.).
                                                          (Pa.Com.PI). On September 18, 2006,

after receiving
      receiving the funds, Mr.
                           Mr. Fielding signed a
                               Fielding signed aNotice
                                                 Notice of Rescission to attempt to rescind the loan

pursuant
pursuant to
         to 15
            15 USC
               USC §$1635
                     1635 of the
                             the Federal
                                 Federal Truth in Lending Aet.
                                               in Lending Act. However, Mr.
                                                                        Mt. Fielding
                                                                            Fielding failed
                                                                                     failed to

tender
tender the
       the received funds to
           received funds to Mortgage
                             Mortgage Lenders
                                      Lenders Network,
                                              Network, USA,
                                                       USA, and
                                                            and to
                                                                to take
                                                                   take required
                                                                        required termination
                                                                                 termination

steps to
steps    terminate the Note and Mortgage.
      to terminate              Mortgage. Id. Instead, he misappropriated the received funds to

pay off several
pay off several other
                other outstanding
                      outstanding debts
                                  debts and kept the
                                        and kept the excess
                                                     excess cash.
                                                            cash. Id. As
                                                                      As a
                                                                         a result,
                                                                           result, Mortgage Lenders
                                                                                   Mortgage Lenders

Network,
Network, USA,
         USA, duly
              duly recorded the Mortgage with the Philadelphia County Recorder of Deeds

           began servicing
Office and began servicing the
                           the Note
                               Note and
                                    and the Mortgage.
                                            Mortgage. Id.
                                                      Id

       On or before February
                    February 2,
                             2, 2007, Bank of America N.A., was assigned possession and

servicer of
servicer of the
            the original
                original loan.
                         loan. Id. On or
                               Id On  or about
                                         about September
                                               September 28, 2012, Bank
                                                         28, 2012,      of America,
                                                                   Bank of America, determined
                                                                                    determined

that
that they
     they had
          had lost the original
                       original Note
                                Note and executed an Affidavit of
                                                  an Affidavit of Lost Note to
                                                                            to affirm
                                                                               affirm that
                                                                                      that they
                                                                                           they had
                                                                                                had

not transferred the Note and had remained its rightful possessor. Id. at
                                                                      at 3.

       Appellant
       Appellant stopped
                 stopped making
                         making payments on the
                                payments on     Mortgage Loan
                                            the Mortgage      and Note
                                                         Loan and      on May
                                                                  Note on     1, 2009.
                                                                          May 1, 2009.

Bank
Bank of America
        America informed Appellant of the default due to his
                informed Appellant                       his non-payment
                                                             non-payment on August
                                                                            August 12, 2009.
                                                                                       2009.

Id. On April
Id On  April 12, 2013, Bank of America,
             12,2013,          America, also informed Mr. Fielding of their intent to foreclose via

certified mail that had been sent to the Property.
                                         Property. Pending the commencement of foreclosure

litigation, the Note
litigation,     Note and the
                         the Mortgage
                             Mortgage Loan
                                      Loan were
                                           were transferred
                                                transferred between
                                                            between several lenders
                                                                            lenders and servicers

before
before Christiana Trust became
                        became the
                               the holder
                                   holder of the
                                             the Mortgage.
                                                 Mortgage. Id.
                                                           Id

                                                  2
                                                  2
           April 20,
        On April 20, 2017,
                     2017, Christiana Trust filed
                           Christiana Trust filed a Complaint in
                                                  a Complaint in Mortgage
                                                                 Mortgage Foreclosure against the
                                                                          Foreclosure against the

Property,
Property, requesting an in-rem
          requesting an        judgment for
                        in-rem judgment     $ 169,306.07. Over
                                        for $169,306.07.  Over the course of
                                                               the course of lengthy
                                                                             lengthy litigation,
                                                                                     litigation,

the
the Mortgage
    Mortgage and Note underwent several more transfers until the current Plaintiff and Appellee,

MTGLQ
MTGLQ Investors,
      Investors, LP.,
                 LP., became holders and servicers of the Mortgage Loan and Note on June 21,

2019. Id.
2019.

        On January 8, 2020
           January 8, 2020 and
                           and January
                               January 9,
                                       9, 2020, the Honorable
                                          2020, the Honorable Stella
                                                              Stella Tsai,
                                                                     Tsai, Judge
                                                                           Judge of the Court
                                                                                 of the Court of
                                                                                              of

Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Civil Division conducted a
Common                                                                                abench

trial.
trial. Plaintiff
       Plaintiff MTGLQ
                 MTGLQ Investors, LP
                                  LP was represented
                                         represented by Bradley J,
                                                                J. Osborne, Esquire,
                                                                            Esquire, and

Appellant        Fielding was represented
Appellant Calvin Fielding     represented by
                                          by Joshua
                                             Joshua L. Thomas, Esquire.
                                                               Esquire.'2 Judge Tsai entered
                                                                                     entered aa

verdict and judgment
            judgment in rem in favor of Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, LP, on November 10, 2020.

In a
   a Memorandum Opinion
                Opinion supporting
                        supporting the Order of Judgement, Judge Tsai determined that

Defendant Calvin Fielding,
Defendant Calvin Fielding, Sr.
                           Sr. had
                               had been in default
                                   been in         of the
                                           default of the Note and Mortgage
                                                          Note and Mortgage Loan due to
                                                                            Loan due to his
                                                                                        his

chronic non-payment
chronic non-payment toward
                    toward his obligations, and
                           his obligations, and recited
                                                recited the
                                                        the following
                                                            following three
                                                                      three relevant
                                                                            relevant findings of
                                                                                     findings of

fact,
fact, inter alia:

         1. "Plaintiff
               Plaintiff MTGLQ
                         MTGLQ Investors, LP. had standing to enforce the Mortgage and
        Note.
        Note
        2.     Plaintiff MTGLQ
                         MTGLQ Investors,
                                   Investors, LP was in possession
                                                         possession of a                 of
                                                                        avalid Affidavit of
        Lost Note,
             Note, properly
                   properly effectuated by
                                        by prior
                                           prior Note servicer Bank of America, NA.
        33.     Defendant failed to properly
                                    properly execute recission of the loan."

Id.   4-8.
Id at 4.8

        On December 7, 2020, Mr. Fielding, through former counsel, filed aatimely appeal of the

Order and Judgment
Order     Judgment to the Superior
                          Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
                                            Pennsylvania. The appellate court quashed the appeal

   February 16,
on February                       2, 2021, Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, LP filed aaPraecipe for
                         February 2,
            16, 2021. On February

zWhile the docketed record reflects that
While                               that Mr.
                                         Mr. Thomas still represents
                                                          represents Mr.
                                                                       Mr. Fielding, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
issued a two-year suspension of Mr.
       a two-year                 Mr Thomas' license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on
October 1,
October    2021. Appellant
         I,2021. Appellant has proceeded pro
                           has proceeded   pro se in
                                                  in the current
                                                         current litigation
                                                                 litigation before
                                                                            before this
                                                                                   this Court.

                                                          33
     of Execution,
Writ of Execution, and
                   and the
                       the Philadelphia
                           Philadelphia Sheriff's
                                        Sheriffs Department  initially scheduled
                                                  Department initially scheduled a
                                                                                 aSheriff's Sale
                                                                                   Sheriffs Sale

of the
of the Property
       Property for
                for May 4, 2021.
                    May 4, 2021. In
                                 In response,
                                    response, Defendant
                                              Defendant Fielding
                                                        Fielding filed
                                                                 filed a
                                                                       a Motion to Strike the Writ

on April
   April 8,
         8, 2021 and the sale
                         sale was continued until
                                            until July
                                                  July 13,
                                                       13, 2021.
                                                           2021.

       On June
       On June 15, 2021, Judge
               15, 2021,       Tsai granted
                         Judge Tsai granted Defendant's
                                            Defendant'sMotion
                                                        Motion to Strike the Writ, after
                                                                                   after finding
                                                                                         finding

that the
that the Prothonotary
         Prothonotary had lacked
                          lacked jurisdiction
                                 jurisdiction to
                                              to enter the
                                                       the writ,
                                                           writ, due to
                                                                     to then
                                                                        then pending
                                                                             pending appeal. As
                                                                                             As a.a

result, the
result, the City
            City of
                 of Philadelphia
                    Philadelphia Sheriff's Department
                                           Department cancelled the July 13, 2021 sale of the subject
                                                                         13,2021

Property. Thereafter, the matter was stayed
Property. Thereafter,                stayed for over aayear
                                                       year due to the entry of Administrative Order

No.
No. 18, by the
    18, by the Count
               Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, which had

directed a
         a moratorium
           moratorium of all sheriff's sales due
                         all sheriffs        due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
                                                    the COVID-I9

        Administrative
        Administrative Order No. 18, expired on December 31,
                                 18, expired                 2021, and on June 29, 2022, current
                                                         31,2021,

servicer, and Plaintiff,
servicer,     Plaintiff, MTGLQ                                                 of Execution. Thd
                         MTGLQ Investors, LP, filed aasecond Praecipe for Writ of            The

City of Philadelphia
City of Philadelphia Sheriff's Department subsequently scheduled a
                               Department subsequently           a sale of the
                                                                           the Property f6i
                                                                               Property fot

October 4, 2022.
October 4, 2022. On
                 On October
                    October 3, 2022, at
                            3, 2022, at or
                                        or around
                                           around 6.24
                                                  6:24 P.M.,
                                                       P.M., Defendant Calvin Fielding
                                                             Defendant Calvin          Sr. filed
                                                                              Fielding Sr. filed

an
an Emergency
   Emergency Petition to Stay
             Petition to      Sale,' which
                         Stay Sale,  which was assigned to
                                           was assigned to this Court as
                                                           this Court as the
                                                                         the presiding Judge of
                                                                             presiding Judge of

the Philadelphia
    Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Civil Motions program. In his Petition, Mr. Fielding

repeated
repeated his
         his previously disproven and completely
             previously disproven     completely resolved
                                                 resolved claims, that he
                                                                       he had
                                                                          had rescinded
                                                                              rescinded the loan,
                                                                                            loan,

that the lost Note had been fraudulently obtained, and that Plaintiff MTGLQ
                                                                      MTGLO Investors, LP had

lacked standing
       standing to foreclose on the Mortgage
                                    Mortgage and Note. This Court scheduled an emergency

hearing
hearing to address Appellant's
                   Appellant's Emergency
                               Emergency Petition to Stay Sale for 10:00 A.M. on October 4,
                                                                                         4,202i
                                                                                            2022

in Courtroom 446 City Hall
             446 City Hall Philadelphia,
                           Philadelphia, PA.
                                         PA

               hearing, Mr. Fielding
        At the hearing,     Fielding appeared
                                     appeared in person
                                                 person pro se, and Sara McCaffrey Esquire,

appeared as
appeared    counsel for
         as counsel for Plaintiff
                        Plaintiff by
                                  by phone,
                                     phone, because
                                            because Appellant
                                                    Appellant had
                                                              had filed
                                                                  filed to
                                                                        to abide by this
                                                                           abide by this Court's
                                                                                         Court's

 Appellant interchangeably references this filing as both an Emergency Motion to Stay a
Appellant
3                                                                                     aSale and a
                                                                                                aPetition to Stay
Sale.
Sale
                                                       4
                                                       4
previously issued Ex
previously issued Er Parte Order directing him
                           Order directing him to serve Plaintiff
                                               to serve Plaintiff with
                                                                  with aacopy
                                                                         copy of
                                                                              of his
                                                                                 his Emergency

Petition
Petition to
         to Stay and Rule
            Stay and      and Notice
                     Rule and Notice of hearing date,
                                     of hearing date, time,
                                                      time, and
                                                            and location.
                                                                location. See Notes of Testimony

from hearing
from hearing on October 4,
                        4, 2022 p.
                                p. 13.
                                   13

       Counsel
       Counsel for
               for Plaintiff,      McCaffrey, Esquire,
                   Plaintiff, Sara Mccaffrey, Esquire, duly informed
                                                            informed this Court that
                                                                                that MTGLQ

Investors,
Investors, LP had previously
           LP had            and properly
                  previously and          served Appellant
                                 properly served Appellant with
                                                           with aacopy
                                                                  copy of
                                                                       of the
                                                                          the Writ
                                                                              Writ and
                                                                                   and Notice of
                                                                                       Notice of

the Sheriff Sale by
                 by certified mail and by
                                       by posting
                                          posting to the Property. Id.
                                                                   Id at 16.
                                                                         16. Plaintiffs
                                                                             Plaintiff's attorney

further
further related
        related that Mr.
                     Mr. Fielding
                         Fielding had rejected all offers
                                  had rejected     offers of loan mitigation, contrary to his false
                                                                                              false

representations
representations to this Court.
                        Court. Id. at 17.
                                      17. In
                                          In response, Appellant repeated
                                             response, Appellant repeated his claims that
                                                                                     that he
                                                                                          he had

              loan, and that the Affidavit of
rescinded the loan,                        of Lost Note had been fraudulently issued.
                                                                              issued. He demanded

that
that the
     the matter
         matter be
                be listed
                   listed for
                          for another
                              another trial.
                                      trial. Id. at 20.
                                                    20. Having
                                                        Having determined that
                                                                          that Appellant
                                                                               Appellant had
                                                                                         had presented
                                                                                             presented

zero credible basis for his requested
                            requested relief, this Court denied the Emergency Petition to Stay Sale
                                                                                               Sale:

Id. at. 22. The
ld at.      The Property
                Property was
                         was sold at sheriff sale and
                                                  and auction
                                                      auction that
                                                              that same day. No
                                                                             No appeal was
                                                                                       was filed.
                                                                                           filed.

       Instead of filing any timely
                  filing any timely appeal
                                    appeal of this Court's Order of October 4, 2022, Appellant filed

aaMotion to Set Aside the Sale on October
                                  October 17, 2022, which
                                                    which regurgitated the
                                                                       the same
                                                                           same arguments that
                                                                                          that

had been raised within his Emergency
                           Emergency Petition to Stay the Sale and during prior oral argument and

offered testimony.
        testimony. This Court formally
                              formally denied the Motion to Set Aside the Sale on November 10,

2022. Mr.
2022. Mr. Calvin Fielding
                 Fielding filed an appeal
                                   appeal of this Court's Order of November 10, 2022 denying the

Motion to Set Aside the Sale on December 6, 2022.

       On January
          January 4, 2023, this Court directed Appellant
                  4, 2023,                     Appellant to file a
                                                                 aConcise Statement of Errors

Complained of on
Complained of on Appeal, pursuant to
                 Appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania
                                     Pennsylvania Rule
                                                  Rule of Appellate Procedure
                                                       of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
                                                                              1925(b). In
                                                                                       In

response,
response, Appellant
          Appellant filed aa1925(b)
                            1925(b) Statement raising the following verbatim twelve
                                                                             twelve ((12)
                                                                                      12) claims:

        1. "Whether
               Whether thethe trial
                              trial court
                                    court erred
                                          erred in
                                                in denying
                                                   denying my
                                                           my motion to Set
                                                              motion to Set Aside The Sale,
                                                                            Aside The Sale,
        giving
        giving no
               no basis
                  basis for the denial
                        for the denial and
                                        and dismissal..
                                            dismissal...

                                                  5
       2.2.   Whether
              Whether the
                      the trial                denying my
                          trial court erred in denying my motion
                                                           motion to
                                                                  to Set
                                                                     Set Aside The Sale,
                                                                                   Sale,
       since The sale should not have been permitted
                                                  permitted to proceed because aa loan
       modification was offered and pending....
                                       pending.
       3.
       3.     Whether
               Whether the
                        the trial court erred
                            trial court erred in denying my
                                              in denying my motion
                                                             motion to Set Aside
                                                                    to Set        The Sale,
                                                                           Aside The   Sale,
       since The sale
       since The sale should
                      should not
                               not have  been permitted
                                   have been  permitted to
                                                        to proceed because it
                                                           proceed because  it was aabreach
                                                                                     breach
            contract...
       of contract.
       4.
       4         Whether the trial court erred in denying      denying my motion to Set Aside The Sale,
       since the sale should not have been permitted        permitted to proceed because the Plaintiff
       admitted
       admitted theythey never    sent a
                          never sent      correct Notice
                                        a correct   Notice of     of Intent
                                                                     Intent to
                                                                             to Foreclose...
                                                                                Foreclose...
       5.        Whether the trial court erred in         in denying
                                                               denying my motion to Set Aside The Sale,
       because the Plaintiff lacked standing.
                                            standing...
       6.        Whether the trial court erred in failing    failing to properly
                                                                           properly attach an opinion..
                                                                                                opinion...
       7.        Whether the trial court erred fails to recognize   recognize the new evidence of the lost
       note robo signed
                     signed documents and forge    forge file by   by the plaintiff's   complaint...
                                                                            plaintiffs complaint..
       8.        Whether the trial court erred of the plaintiff complaint of having a                    a clear
       chain
       chain of of Title
                   Title without
                          without proof
                                     proof of
                                            of assignment...
                                                assignment...
       9.
       9,         Whether the trial court erred in       in ignoring
                                                            ignoring the Violation Cease &       & Desist order
       of evidence from the SEC filings    filings that the
                                                     t h at  t he  companies     have   a
                                                                                        a long  history of non-
       existing
       existing and abuse and has been penalized  penalized an agreement
                                                                       agreement with the SEC...
       10.
        10,       Whether
                  Whether the     trial court
                             the trial  court erred
                                                erred in  in failing
                                                              failing to   allow for
                                                                        to allow  for the  defense Declaration
                                                                                      the defense   Declaration
       of Private
       of    Private Investigator,
                       Investigator, Mortgage
                                         Mortgage auditor auditor William
                                                                      William J,J. Paatalo
                                                                                    Paatalo (sp)
                                                                                              (sp) findings   of
                                                                                                    findings of
       Facts...
       11.1       Whether The trial courts allow aaVolition of aafalse substitution after the
       default waswas entered
                        entered in
                                 in trial
                                     trial court
                                           court proceeding
                                                   proceeding was     was ongoing...
        12.
        2.        Whether
                  Whether the trial
                                  trial courts
                                        courts erred
                                                 erred to ignoring
                                                                ignoring Violation
                                                                           Violation Cease
                                                                                      Cease & & Desist
                                                                                                 Desist order of
                   Judgements from the Office of the Comptroller of Currency by Continuing
       consent Judgements
       to
       to use
            use Deceptive
                 Deceptive Practices.
                              Practices. Voide
                                            Voide (sp)
                                                     (sp) Notices
                                                            Notices of Default.
                                                                            Default. Notices
                                                                                      Notices of
                                                                                               of sale."

DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION

       Despite Appellant's listing
       Despite Appellant's listing of a
                                      amyriad
                                        myriad of perceived errors, no claim has been presented

that    deserving of appellate
that is deserving    appellate relief. Appellant complained
                               relief. Appellant complained in
                                                            in claims numbered one
                                                                               one ((1)
                                                                                     1) and six
                                                                                            six (6),

that this Court had erred by     attaching to its November 10, 2022 Order, aamemorandum opinion
                          by not attaching

stating the
stating the rationale
            rationale for the
                          the dismissal
                              dismissal of his
                                           his Motion to Set Aside the
                                                                   the Sale. Since neither
                                                                                   neither the
                                                                                           the

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania nor the Philadelphia
                     Philadelphia Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that a
                                                                        a trial court include an

Opinion or Memorandum with their Orders, these claims should be summarily dismissed
Opinion                                                                   dismissed.

                                                          66
       Moreover,                      already responded
       Moreover, since this Court had already responded to Appellant's previously filed and

litigated
litigated Emergency
          EmergencyMotion
                    Motion to
                           to Set Aside the
                              Set Aside the Sale,
                                            Sale, which
                                                  which had
                                                        had included
                                                            included mirror
                                                                     mirror imaged claims to
                                                                                          to the
                                                                                             the

subject Motion
subject Motion to Set Aside the Sale, Appellant
                                      Appellant had demonstrated no prejudice for this Court's lack

of additional comments within the subject
                                  subject Order. Appellant did not appeal this Court's ruling and

had been well-advised of this Court's rationale and of Judge Tsai's previous relevant findings.
had

       Within appellate
              appellate claim number two
                                     two (2),
                                         (2), Appellant asserted "that the sale should not have

been
been permitted    proceed because a
     permitted to proceed         a loan modification was offered and pending." This complaint

directly contradicts eredible
directly             credible evidence that had been introduced during the hearing held before this

Court on October 4,
Court            4, 2022
                    2022 in response
                            response to
                                     to Mr.
                                        Mr. Fielding's
                                            Fielding's last minute
                                                            minute Emergency
                                                                   Emergency Petition
                                                                             Petition to
                                                                                      to Stay the
                                                                                              the

Sale. Indeed,
      Indeed, the relevant evidence that had been introduced demonstrated quite convincingly that

Appellant's claim of a
Appellant's          apending
                       pending loan modification had been patently false because Appellant had

repeatedly                                             the loan obligations
repeatedly refused Plaintiff's offers to him to modify the      obligations.

       Additionally,
       Additionally, Appellant's
                     Appellant's claim number three (3), recites that the sheriff sale should not

have
have gone
     gone forward
          forward because
                  because it
                          it"was
                             was aabreach    contract.," This complaint should be
                                   breach of contract_"                        be dismissed as

          vague and overly
it is too vague            broad. Pa. R.A.P. 1925()(4(ii)
                    overly broad.            1925(b)(4)(ii) requires an appellant to "concisely

identify
identify each error that the appellant
                             appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to

              the judge."
be raised for the judge." A
                          A vague
                            vague and overly broad issue is deemed waived as it is equivocal to not

raising
raising the claim at all. See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148
                                         • Wyeth,                148 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013); Hess v
                                                                                                 v.

Fox Rothschild,
    Rothschild, LLP,
                LLP, 925 A.2d 798, 803-04
                                   803-04 (Pa.        Ct. 2007). Mr. Fielding's third claim is so
                                          (Pa. Super. Ct.

ambiguous that this Court must
ambiguous                      guess as to the source of his
                          must guess                     his grievance. Thus, this patently
                                                                                   patently meritless

protest
protest had been waived. Similarly, Appellant does not narrate a
                         Similarly, Appellant                  acoherent sentence within claim

         eleven ((H).
numbered eleven   11). Since this Court again
                                        again cannot reasonably determine what
                                                                          what claim Appellant
                                                                                     Appellant

is asserting, it has been waived as undecipherable.

                                                   7
                                                   7
       Appellant's remaining
       Appellant's           complaints lack any legitimate factual or legal basis that could
                   remaining complaints

warrant any
warrant any relief.
            relief. Mr.
                    Mr, Fielding
                        Fielding submitted zero evidence to justify setting aside the sheriff sale of

the subject
the subject property.
            property, Instead,
                      Instead, his Motion to Set Aside the Sale simply reiterated his claims from

previously
previously litigated
           litigated foreclosure action that had long since been entered as a
                                                                            a Judgment and Order

following trial.
following trial

        Specifically, Pa.R.C.P. No. 3132 sets forth direction for when petitions to set aside sheriff
        Specifically,                                                                                s
                                                                                              sheriffs

sales may
      may be
          be allowed:

        "Upon
        Upon petition
                petition of  any party
                         of any  party in
                                        in interest before delivery
                                           interest before delivery of
                                                                    of the
                                                                       the personal
                                                                           personal property or
                                                                                    property or
        of
        of the sheriff's deed to
           the sheriffs        to real property,
                                       property, the court
                                                      court may,
                                                            may, upon
                                                                 upon proper
                                                                       proper cause shown, set
        aside the sale and order a  a resale or enter any
                                                       any other order which may be just and
        proper
        proper under
                under the
                       the circumstances."

Pa.R.C.P.
Pa.RC.P. No.  3132.
          No. 3132.           In determining
                              In determining whether
                                             whether to set aside
                                                     to set aside a sheriff's sale,
                                                                  a sheriff's sale, "[e]quitable
                                                                                    "[equitable

considerations govern
considerations govern the
                      the trial
                          trial court's decision." Bank of Am.,
                                                   Bank of Am., N.A.
                                                                N.A. v.       of Hood,
                                                                     • Estate of Hood, 47 A.3d
                                                                                          A.3d

1208, 1211
1208, 1211 (Pa. Super. Ct.
           (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012)
                           2012) (internal citation omitted).
                                 (internal citation omitted). It is well
                                                              It is      settled that
                                                                    well settled that the
                                                                                      the burden of
                                                                                          burden of

proof
proof is
      is on the
            the petitioner:
                petitioner

         "As aageneral
        As      general rule,
                         rule, the burden of proving
                                              proving circumstances warranting the exercise of
        tthe
         he court's equitable
                      equitable powers
                                 powers  is on  the applicant,
                                                    applicant, and the application to set aside aa
         sheriffs sale
         sheriff's sale may
                         may be refused because
                                          because of the
                                                       the insufficiency
                                                           insufficiency of proof
                                                                            proof to
                                                                                   to support
                                                                                      support the
                                                                                              the
        material
         material allegations
                    allegations   of
                                  of the
                                     the   application,
                                           application,  which
                                                         which   are
                                                                 are  generally
                                                                      generally  required
                                                                                 required  to
                                                                                           to  be
                                                                                               be
         established
         established byby clear evidence."
                          clear evidence."

        Id. (internal
        Id  (internal citation omitted).
                               omitted). A
                                         A trial court's decision on aapetition to set aside will "not

[be] reverse[d]
[be] reverse[d] ...
                 .. absent an abuse of discretion." Id.
                                                    Id

        Appellant
        Appellant had
                  had requested
                      requested this Court exercise
                                this Court exercise its
                                                    its equitable
                                                        equitable powers
                                                                  powers based on a
                                                                         based on a vague
                                                                                    vague

proclamation of fraud,
proclamation of fraud, and of aafalse
                       and of   false statement
                                      statement that
                                                that there had been
                                                     there had been aapending
                                                                      pending loan
                                                                              loan modification
                                                                                   modification

agreement. Mr. Fielding
agreement.     Fielding provided
                        provided no evidence to support either assertion. To the contrary,

Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, by
           by and through
                  through its counsel, had previously
                                           previously and repeatedly debunked these bold claims

both during
both during the
            the trial and later
                trial and       during subsequent
                          later during subsequent hearing
                                                  hearing that
                                                          that this Court had
                                                               this Court     conducted on
                                                                          had conducted on October
                                                                                           October

                                                    8
                                                    8
4, 2022
4, 2022 to
        to address
           address the
                   the earlier Emergency
                               Emergeney Petition to Stay the Sheriff Sale. No
                                                                            No appeal
                                                                               appeal was
                                                                                      was filed
                                                                                          filed

following
following this Court Order that had been entered denying
          this Court                             denying the Emergency Petition to Stay the

Sheriff
Sheriff Sale
        Sale on October 4,
             on October 4, 2022.
                           2022. Instead, Appellant subsequently
                                 Instead, Appellant subsequently filed
                                                                 filed the
                                                                       the meritless
                                                                           meritless Motion
                                                                                     Motion to
                                                                                            to Set
                                                                                               Set

Aside the
      the Sale which had
                     had constituted aabelated and repeated
                                                   repeated attempt
                                                            attempt to revive
                                                                       revive previously
                                                                              previously disposed

claims.

          Appellant's Motion
          Appellant's Motion to
                             to Set Aside the Sale, on its
                                              Sale, on its face, contained vague,
                                                           face, contained vague, repetitive,
                                                                                  repetitive, and
                                                                                              and

conclusory written
conclusory written statements that had been devoid of any factual or legal support. For instance,

Mr. Fielding referred
Mr. Fielding referred to a pending
                           "pending loan modification agreement"
                                                      agreement" between himself and MTGLQ

as justification
as justification to set aside
                 to set aside the
                              the sale.
                                  sale. However,
                                        However, the
                                                 the record soundly reflects
                                                     record soundly reflects that
                                                                             that Mr.
                                                                                  Mr. Fielding
                                                                                      Fielding

repeatedly
repeatedly rejected
           rejected Plaintiff's offers to
                    Plaintiffs offers  to enter into aaloan
                                          enter into   loan modification agreement leading
                                                            modification agreement leading up
                                                                                           up to
                                                                                              to the
                                                                                                 the

Sheriff's
Sheriffs Sale. Nor     Appellant provide
               Nor did Appellant provide any
                                         any documentation or
                                                           or evidence which
                                                                       which had
                                                                             had demonstrated

that
that there had
           had been any subsequent discussions about aaloan modification. Given Mr.
                    any subsequent                                              Mr. Fielding's

characterization of Plaintiffs
                    Plaintiffs as "bottom-feeder debt
                                                 debt collectors," there is
                                                                         is no
                                                                            no reason to believe that
                                                                                                 that

he
he had approached any loan modification effort with good
       approached any                               good faith intentions.
                                                               intentions

          Appellate                 nine (9)
          Appellate claims numbered nine (9) and twelve
                                                 twelve ((2),
                                                          12), referenced unrelated findings against

prior
prior Plaintiff,
      Plaintiff, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, hereinafter "WSFS",
                 Wilmington Savings                                WSFS", made by the United

States Securities and Exchange
                      Exchange Commission, hereafter ""SEC,"
                                                       SEC," and Office of the Comptroller of

Currency. These criticisms lacked any
Currency.                         any nexus to Appellant's         circumstances.' Notably, Mr.
                                               Appellant's current circumstances.           Mr,

Fielding's
Fielding's "Exhibit I" which documented an SEC decision to institute cease-and-desist

proceedings against
proceedings against WSFS,
                    WSFS, pertained
                          pertained to
                                    to their
                                       their dealings with aaMr.
                                             dealings with       Andrew Proctor.
                                                             Mr. Andrew Proctor. As
                                                                                 As such, this
                                                                                    such, this

document was completely irrelevant and not permissibly
         was completely                    permissibly entered evidence. Moreover, Appellant's

references to these
references                     findings offered no
              these extraneous findings            justification to
                                                no justification to set aside the
                                                                              the sale.

  While Mr.
While
4              Fielding referred to an
          Mr. Fielding               an Office of the
                                                  the Comptroller of Currency decision as an attached Exhibit "J" in
                                                                                                      Exhibit l   in his
petition,
petition, he
          he failed
              failed to attach     exhibit.
                        attach the exhibit

                                                           99
       The remainder of Mr. Fielding's
                            Fielding's claims, lack of evidence notwithstanding, constituted

nothing
nothing more than baseless attacks upon
                                   upon the validity of the underlying final judgement that had

been entered in 2020.
been            2020. Notably,
                      Notably, aatrial court may not modify an Order after thirty (30) days of its

entry. P.A.R.C.P
entry. P.A.R.C.P §$ 5505. See also Simpson
                                   Simpson v.
                                           • Allstate Ins. Co., 504 A.24
                                                                    A.2d 335, 337
                                                                              337 (Pa.        Ct.
                                                                                  (Pa. Super. Ct

1986)
1986) ("A
      (A entered in adverse proceedings
                            proceedings becomes final if no appeal therefrom is filed within

thirty days.")
thirty days.") Once this window passes,
                                passes, aatrial court may not rescind an order or relitigate the

underlying         Simpson at
underlying issues. Simpson at 337. Similarly, aacourt may not
                              337, Similarly,             not relitigate
                                                              relitigate issues determined by aa

court of higher
         higher or concurrent jurisdiction. Com. v.
                              jurisdiction. Com  ». Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa.
                                                                               (Pa. 1995)

(discussing the "law of the case" doctrine).
(discussing

       Appellant's
       Appellant's claims, that as the previous
                                       previous Defendant, he had rescinded the Note and

Mortgage,
Mortgage, and that the Plaintiff MTGLQ had lacked standing to pursue the foreclosure, and that

the Affidavit ofLost
    Affidavit of Lost Note had been fraudulent. Each assertion had been previously presented during

trial before Judge
             Judge Tsai,
                   Tsai, who found them without merit, and entered aajudgement in favor of the

Plaintiff
Plaintiff in 2020. Mr.
          in 2020. Mr. Fielding
                       Fielding appealed
                                appealed the verdict,
                                             verdict, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
                                                                                Pennsylvania

              appeal. Thus, the Order and Judgment had become final well before Appellant
dismissed his appeal.

appeared                      the eve of the Sheriff Sale and again after the property had been
appeared before this Court on the

sold. Since the underlying
                underlying facts of this case had been long since settled, Appellant is not entitled

to relitigate them.
              them

        Summarily, Appellant has failed to present any clear evidence or reason to warrant this
        Summarily,

Court to exercise its equitable
                      equitable power
                                power to set aside the Sheriff's
                                                       Sheriffs Sale.
                                                                 Sale. Instead, he presented this

Court with wild,
           wild, baseless claims to illegally
                                    illegally relitigate
                                              relitigate aalong-settled matter. Since there had been

no proper
   proper cause demonstrated to set
                                set aside the Sheriffs
                                              Sheriff's Sale, this Court had committed no error or
                                                                                                     1
abuse in discretion by
                    by denying Mr. Calvin Fielding's
                                          Fielding'sMotion
                                                     Motion to Set Aside the Sale
                                                                             Sale.

                                                 10
                                                 IO
CONCLUSION

       For all the foregoing
                   foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully requests that its
                                                                            its Order of November

10, 2022 denying Appellant's
10,              Appellant's Motion to Set
                             Motion to Set Aside the Sale
                                           Aside the Sale be affirmed.

                                                    BY
                                                    RY THE COURT:

                                            -;?      - ✓-
                                                    Hon.
                                                                  1•_
                                                    H:n. Anne ;�rlc
                                                                         -/
                                                                       �oyle,
                                                               arie B. Coyle, J.

                                               11