Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Lindsay
185 A.3d 307
| Pa. | 2018Background
- Lindsay purchased a mixed-use property with a mortgage later assigned to Bayview; he began using it as his primary residence and defaulted in 2012.
- Bayview filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint in 2013; Lindsay answered and pleaded new matter asserting, among other defenses, that Bayview failed to provide the 30‑day pre‑foreclosure notice required by Act 6 §403(a).
- The trial court denied Bayview’s motion for summary judgment based on disputed facts; Bayview then discontinued the foreclosure action without prejudice.
- Lindsay moved for statutory attorneys’ fees under Act 6 §503(a), claiming he was the prevailing party because Bayview discontinued after his Act 6 defense; the trial court and Superior Court denied relief.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and held that pleading an Act 6 §403(a) violation as an affirmative defense in a foreclosure is not “an action arising under [Act 6],” so §503(a) fees are unavailable under these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lindsay) | Defendant's Argument (Bayview) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether asserting a §403(a) Act 6 violation as an affirmative defense in a foreclosure qualifies as an "action arising under [Act 6]" that can support §503(a) attorney's fees | Raising the defense and litigating compliance effectively creates the Act 6 "action"; "action" should be interpreted broadly and not limited to causes of action | "Action" is a term of art meaning a separate civil proceeding filed under Act 6; an affirmative defense is not a separate action and thus does not trigger §503(a) | Held: An affirmative defense is not "an action arising under [Act 6]"; §503(a) fees not available on this basis |
| Whether discontinuance without prejudice after an Act 6 defense makes the debtor a "prevailing party" entitled to §503(a) fees | Discontinuance equals dismissal and thus a prevailing result for the debtor | Discontinuance without prejudice is not success on the merits and does not make the debtor a prevailing party for §503(a) purposes | Held: Under the Court's analysis petitioner did not establish entitlement to fees; an affirmative defense was not adjudicated as a separate Act 6 action and petitioner did not prevail for §503(a) purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Seave, 554 A.2d 886 (Pa. 1989) (describing Act 6 as an extensive foreclosure‑avoidance consumer protection statute)
- Gardner v. Clark, 503 A.2d 8 (Pa. Super. 1986) (debtor awarded fees after creditor sought enforcement of confessed judgment without required Act 6 procedure)
- Generation Mortgage Co. v. Nguyen, 138 A.3d 646 (Pa. Super. 2016) (foreclosure action does not "arise under" Act 6; Act 6 notice is separate and typically a defense)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barbezat, 131 A.3d 65 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Act 6 notice requirement is distinct from foreclosure causes of action)
- Solebury Twp. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 928 A.2d 990 (Pa. 2007) (prevailing‑party analyses can look beyond formal judgment to practical success but require meaningful contribution or success on the merits)