Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. Vukmam
37 A.3d 596
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant mortgagee and Appellee mortgagor settled foreclosure claim in 2009 with judgment for $217,508.81; Appellee would be protected from execution if payments continued.
- In 2010, Appellant filed an affidavit of default and sought a writ of execution; sheriffs sale occurred on August 2, 2010, with Appellant the successful bidder.
- Appellee filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Sheriffs Sale alleging Act 91 notice was deficient for not informing her she could meet face-to-face with the mortgagee.
- Trial court voided the sale and judgment, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding the Act 91 notice deficient.
- Appellant appealed, contesting the trial court’s interpretation of Act 91 notice requirements and seeking affirmance of the judgment/sale setting.
- Court held that Act 91 notice deficiencies are jurisdictional; however, the governing analysis concluded the notice was deficient and the sale/judgment were properly set aside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 91 §1680.403c notice must inform a mortgagor of meeting with the mortgagee. | Agency discretion to choose notice form; model notice allowed counseling agency option. | Notice must inform mortgagor of meeting with mortgagee; deficient notice affects jurisdiction. | Notice deficient; but issue resolved in favor of setting aside sale/judgment. |
| Whether the agency's interpretation of §1680.403c(b)(1) should be given deference. | Agency prerogative to promulgate uniform notice should be respected. | Statutory language unambiguous; agency interpretation not controlling. | Statutory text clear; agency interpretation not controlling; deficiency persists. |
| Whether prejudice is required to uphold a defective Act 91 notice under Wells Fargo. | Prejudice analysis not mandated when notice deficient; reliance on Wells Fargo distinguishable. | Wells Fargo controls: prejudice must be shown. | Wells Fargo distinguishable; prejudice not required to uphold deficiency; relief proper. |
| Whether the court properly set aside the judgment and sheriffs sale under equitable rules. | Motion to Set Aside should be denied if notice defective but equitable relief not warranted. | Equitable relief appropriate to cure jurisdictional defect and protect homeowner. | Court correctly set aside sale and judgment; relief affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Administrative Order No. 1-MD-2003, 936 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2007) (subject matter jurisdiction standards for administrative orders)
- Bell v. Kater, 943 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 2008) (jurisdictional challenges and waivable procedural defects)
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Barbour, 592 A.2d 47 (Pa. Super. 1991) (notice requirements can affect jurisdiction)
- Marra v. Stocker, 615 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1992) (failure to provide required notice can void proceedings)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Monroe, 966 A.2d 1140 (Pa. Super. 2009) (prejudice analysis for defective Act 91 notices; distinguishable facts)
- Doherty v. Adal Corp., 261 A.2d 311 (Pa. 1970) (equitable standards in petitions to set aside sheriff's sale)
- Mana v. Stocker, 615 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1992) (review of equitable orders; appellate standard)
- Swords v. Harleysville Insurance Companies, 883 A.2d 562 (Pa. 2005) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)