Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. v. Dowell, Z.
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. v. Dowell, Z. No. 1855 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- In Sept. 2012 Dowell executed a mortgage registered to MERS; the mortgage was later assigned to Wells Fargo and then to Bayview Loan Servicing (Appellee).
- Wells Fargo filed foreclosure on Oct. 20, 2014; Bayview was substituted as plaintiff in Apr. 2016.
- Bayview moved for summary judgment on Sept. 16, 2016; the trial court granted summary judgment on Oct. 14, 2016.
- On Nov. 14, 2016 (the last day to appeal or for the court to modify its order), Dowell filed a timely notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration, and had earlier filed a response to summary judgment attaching a forensic handwriting expert report alleging his note signature was forged.
- The trial court later recognized it had overlooked Dowell’s response and the expert report, concluded the report created a genuine issue of material fact about forgery, and requested this Court to vacate and remand.
- The Superior Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings because the forgery expert evidence created a triable issue and the trial court had lost jurisdiction to grant reconsideration after the appeal was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper when defendant submitted an expert handwriting report alleging forgery | Bayview: no genuine issue; entitled to summary judgment | Dowell: expert report raises a genuine issue that signature was forged, precluding summary judgment | Evidence of expert forgery opinion created a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment should not have been entered |
| Whether trial court could grant reconsideration after appellant filed a notice of appeal | Bayview: court retained authority to reconsider within applicable rules | Dowell: timely appeal deprives trial court of authority to act on merits after appeal filed | Once a timely notice of appeal is filed, trial court generally lacks jurisdiction to alter the order; it may only grant reconsideration if expressly granted within the appeal period |
| Whether the trial court’s inadvertent failure to consider the response justified vacatur/remand | Bayview: judgment was correct despite oversight | Dowell: oversight led to improper grant of summary judgment because key evidence was ignored | Court found the oversight significant because the ignored expert report raised a triable issue; vacatur and remand warranted |
| Standard for handling expert opinions at summary judgment | Bayview: may challenge expert weight/credibility at summary judgment | Dowell: expert conclusions, if supported, must be accepted for purposes of summary judgment | Expert conclusions’ credibility/weight are for the trier of fact; if sufficiently supported, they produce factual disputes precluding summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2006) (summary judgment standard and appellate review explained)
- DeArmitt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (expert testimony must be credited at summary judgment if supported)
- Glaab v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 56 A.3d 693 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial court must defer to supported expert conclusions at summary judgment)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (expert credibility and weight are for the factfinder, not for summary judgment)
- Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Greenville Gastroenterology, SC, 108 A.3d 913 (Pa. Super. 2015) (limits on trial court power to alter orders after appeal)
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court may modify order under §5505 only if motion filed within 30 days and acted on within appeal period)