Federal Nat'l. Mortgage Assn. v. Scripnicencu, L.
Federal Nat'l. Mortgage Assn. v. Scripnicencu, L. No. 3039 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- In 2005 George Scripnicencu executed a $228,000 promissory note and a mortgage (George and Linda Scripnicencu were mortgagors); George died in 2014.
- The mortgage was assigned (by MERS to SunTrust, then by SunTrust to Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), recorded Instrument No. 2013091760).
- FNMA (plaintiff) filed a foreclosure complaint in 2014 and moved for summary judgment in April 2016 seeking an in rem judgment and foreclosure sale (affidavit from loan servicer supported amount due).
- Defendant Linda Scripnicencu answered but failed to specifically deny the default allegations or produce evidentiary support (no affidavits, interrogatories, depositions); she raised standing and notice arguments.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on August 18, 2016; Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s supplemental opinion concluding FNMA owned the mortgage, possessed the endorsed note, and had standing; defendant’s notice claim was waived for Rule 1925(b) defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper | FNMA: pleadings, recorded assignment, note, and servicer affidavit show default and amount due | Scripnicencu: genuine dispute of material fact exists; summary judgment premature | Court: Affirmed — defendant failed to specifically deny default or produce evidence, so no genuine factual issue |
| Whether FNMA had standing/was real party in interest | FNMA: recorded assignment of mortgage plus possession of note (endorsed in blank) establishes holder and right to foreclose | Scripnicencu: FNMA never proved it held the note; thus lacks standing | Court: FNMA had standing — recorded assignment and possession of a negotiable note endorsed in blank sufficed |
| Whether ownership/negotiability of the note was established | FNMA: note endorsements (Buyers Home Mortgage to SunTrust; SunTrust endorsed in blank) make FNMA holder by possession | Scripnicencu: challenges chain/ownership of note | Court: Endorsements and possession made the note negotiable; holder entitled to enforce it; plaintiff proved ownership |
| Whether lack of notice (re: deceased co-borrower) or other appellate contentions warrant relief | FNMA: procedural record shows compliant prosecution; issues not properly preserved | Scripnicencu: argues lack of proper notice and other defects | Court: Notice claim waived for failure to raise in Rule 1925(b); remaining arguments repetitive and without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for appellate review of discretionary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- McConnaughey v. Building Components, Inc., 536 A.2d 95 (Pa. 1988) (summary judgment standard)
- Pape v. Smith, 323 A.2d 856 (Pa. Super. 1974) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Liles v. Balmer, 567 A.2d 691 (Pa. Super. 1989) (non-moving party must set forth specific facts to create genuine issue)
- Younginger v. Heckler, 410 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. 1979) (adverse party cannot rest on pleadings to defeat summary judgment)
- Cunningham v. McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1998) (elements for summary judgment in foreclosure: default, unpaid interest, specified mortgage amount)
- Landau v. Western Pa. Nat'l Bank, 282 A.2d 335 (Pa. 1971) (mortgage secures note; foreclosure requires showing indebtedness under note)
- First Wis. Trust Co. v. Strausser, 653 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 1995) (summary judgment appropriate when mortgagor admits delinquency and lacks cognizable defense)
- Cercone v. Cercone, 386 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1978) (specific denial requirement in responsive pleadings)
- New York Guardian Mortgage Corp. v. Dietzel, 524 A.2d 951 (Pa. Super. 1987) (mortgagor is typically the only party able to specifically deny payment allegations)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupori, 8 A.3d 919 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mortgagee is real party in interest in foreclosure actions)
- Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1872) (note and mortgage relationship: note is primary obligation; mortgage is security)
- Harper v. Lukens, 112 A. 636 (Pa. 1921) (suit on note can be maintained independently of mortgage)
- Womer v. Hilliker, 589 A.2d 257 (Pa. Super. 1991) (standards for opening judgments and appellate review of discretionary relief)