Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Wicker
163 A.3d 1039
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2008 James and Beryl Wicker executed a $119,000 note secured by a mortgage on property in Jefferson County; MERS was nominee for the lender. Countrywide (and its successors) appear in the chain.
- MERS assigned the mortgage to Bank of America (recorded Nov. 1, 2011). Bank of America filed foreclosure on May 30, 2012 alleging default since Sept. 1, 2010.
- Appellants answered with general denials and asserted counterclaims; many counterclaims were dismissed during pretrial proceedings.
- Bank of America obtained partial summary judgment on the issue of default based on appellants’ general denials (deemed admissions).
- Bank of America substituted Bayview as plaintiff before trial; appellants moved to strike the substitution under Pa.R.C.P. 2352(a). After a bench trial the court entered judgment for Bayview. Appellants appealed raising four issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on default | Bank of America: appellants’ general denials admitted default; no genuine issue remains | Wicker: their pleadings did not admit default; factual dispute exists | Held: Affirmed — general denials counted as admissions so no material fact on default |
| Whether Bank of America (and Bayview) had standing to foreclose | Bank of America: recorded assignment of mortgage and succession by merger established mortgagee/note holder status | Wicker: mortgage or note not properly assigned; Bank of America lacked authority to enforce | Held: Affirmed — assignment to Bank of America and succession by merger gave standing; Bayview held the note (endorsement in blank) |
| Whether substitution of Bayview complied with Pa.R.C.P. 2352(a) | Bayview: Praecipe plus attached corporate assignment sufficiently stated material facts for substitution | Wicker: Bayview failed to file required statement of material facts; substitution defective | Held: Affirmed — documents attached to Praecipe satisfied Rule 2352(a) |
| Admissibility of business records and witness testimony (Schonleber) | Bayview: Schonleber qualified to authenticate business records under business‑records hearsay exception | Wicker: Schonleber lacked personal knowledge; records testimony was hearsay and unauthenticated | Held: Affirmed — Schonleber could authenticate under business‑records exceptions; personal knowledge of underlying events not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.2d 462 (Pa. Super. 2014) (general denials can constitute admissions when specific denials are required)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barbezat, 131 A.3d 65 (Pa. Super. 2016) (real‑party‑in‑interest/standing in foreclosure requires ownership of mortgage and right to enforce the note)
- J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2013) (chain of possession for note enforceability is immaterial; succession by merger may confer enforcement rights)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386 (Pa. Super. 2015) (business‑records hearsay exception standards and authentication requirements)
- Boyle v. Steiman, 631 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Super. 1993) (authenticating witness need not have personal knowledge of events; must establish preparation/maintenance of records)
- Nanty‑Glo v. American Surety Co., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932) (Nanty‑Glo rule regarding summary judgment and reliance on opposing party admissions)
- Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1872) (note is principal obligation; mortgage is accessory/security)