HSBC Bank USA v. Reyes, F.
HSBC Bank USA v. Reyes, F. No. 2545 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 31, 2017Background
- In 2006 Reyes executed a $640,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage on 1100 Valley Road; payments ceased February 1, 2010.
- The mortgage was assigned from MERS to Residential Funding (2012); the promissory note later transferred to HSBC, which claimed possession of the original note endorsed in blank.
- HSBC filed a foreclosure complaint in December 2014 seeking an in rem judgment for the unpaid balance (initially alleged ~$884,046.79; later asserted ~$962,421.15).
- HSBC moved to re-establish chain of title and to be deemed assignee of record; the trial court granted that motion in April 2015.
- Reyes filed preliminary objections, later an answer denying amounts due and alleging payment misapplication, but she did not propound any discovery before HSBC moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted HSBC summary judgment (June 15, 2016); Reyes appealed arguing lack of discovery and disputed factual issues about standing and amount due.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HSBC) | Defendant's Argument (Reyes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was premature without further discovery | Court may decide SJ if no genuine issue of material fact; discovery not required if nonmoving party had reasonable time | SJ premature because discovery had not occurred and factual disputes existed | Affirmed: SJ not premature; Reyes failed to seek timely discovery and had adequate notice |
| Whether HSBC had standing/right to foreclose (possession of original note) | HSBC possessed original note endorsed in blank, establishing right to enforce and foreclose | Reyes disputed whether HSBC actually held original note | Held for HSBC: trial court previously ruled chain-of-title/possession; Reyes did not challenge that ruling on appeal |
| Whether Reyes raised a genuine dispute about amount due | HSBC produced calculations showing balance; moved for SJ on unpaid amount | Reyes claimed payments were misapplied and attached bank/servicer records but did not identify specific misapplied payments or contradict calculations | Held for HSBC: Reyes’ general denials insufficient; her evidence did not create a material factual dispute |
| Whether Reyes’ pleadings/admissions affected SJ analysis | N/A | Reyes argued she denied delinquency and amount due | Held: Reyes’s general denial treated as admission of default; specific $0.00 assertion insufficient and unsupported by evidence to defeat SJ |
Key Cases Cited
- E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin, 68 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and Pennsylvania summary judgment rule principles)
- Cunningham v. McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1998) (mortgagee entitled to summary judgment where mortgagors admit default and specified mortgage amount)
- New York Guardian Mortg. Corp. v. Dietzel, 524 A.2d 951 (Pa. Super. 1987) (nonmoving mortgagor must present facts by affidavit/deposition or discovery materials to raise genuine issue)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2014) (possession of note endorsed in blank establishes right to enforce mortgage)
- Reeves v. Middletown Athletic Ass’n, 866 A.2d 1115 (Pa. Super. 2004) (party seeking discovery must act timely; trial court should allow reasonable time for discovery before SJ)