Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barbezat, E.
131 A.3d 65
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- In 2003 Barbezat executed a note to Fulton Bank secured by a mortgage recorded in MERS’ name as nominee for Fulton Bank; the note bears endorsements ending in blank.
- MERS executed a recorded assignment of the mortgage to CitiMortgage on August 2, 2012 (recorded August 6, 2012); CitiMortgage produced the recorded mortgage and assignment and held the note endorsed in blank.
- CitiMortgage sent an Act 6 notice of intention to foreclose to Barbezat on June 21, 2012 (before the recorded assignment to CitiMortgage).
- CitiMortgage filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint in September 2012 alleging default and seeking acceleration and judgment; Barbezat answered and raised defenses including defective Act 6 notice and lack of standing.
- The trial court granted CitiMortgage summary judgment, holding CitiMortgage had standing (possession of note and recorded mortgage assignment) and the Act 6 notice was not defective for naming CitiMortgage; Barbezat appealed.
- This Court affirmed summary judgment: it rejected Barbezat’s standing challenge (CitiMortgage was holder of note and had assignment) and held Act 6 does not require the actual mortgagee’s name on the notice or disclosure of the chain of possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / real party in interest to foreclose | CitiMortgage: produced recorded assignment of mortgage and note endorsed in blank; holder can enforce | Barbezat: CitiMortgage never owned the debt; note not assigned; thus lacks standing | Held for CitiMortgage — recorded assignment + possession of note endorsed in blank established standing |
| Validity of Act 6 notice (who may send it) | CitiMortgage: Act 6 does not require naming the actual mortgagee or disclosure of chain of possession; servicer or holder may send notice | Barbezat: Notice sent by CitiMortgage before it owned mortgage (pre-assignment) so notice defective for naming wrong lender | Held for CitiMortgage — Act 6 focuses on debtor protections; statute does not require naming the actual mortgagee or disclosing chain of possession; notice was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Hovis v. Sunoco, 64 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2013) (summary judgment standard and review explained)
- Cassel-Hess v. Hoffer, 44 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2012) (summary judgment principles)
- J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2013) (chain of possession immaterial to enforceability of note endorsed in blank)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2009) (assignee stands in assignor’s shoes; note possession establishes enforcement rights)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupori, 8 A.3d 919 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mortgagee as real party in interest in foreclosure)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2014) (rejecting argument that lack of formal assignment defeats enforcement when holder possesses note endorsed in blank)
- Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1872) (the debt is primary and the mortgage is accessory; note and mortgage inseparable)