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, 2017

Background

  • 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)
Read the full case