HSBC Bank v. Donaghy, A.
101 A.3d 129
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Appellee HSBC Bank, NA as trustee filed a mortgage foreclosure suit against Appellant Amy C. Donaghy for default on a March 29, 2007 mortgage securing her Delaware County residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice provisions of Sections 20 and 22 of the mortgage were satisfied before foreclosure. | HSBC asserts proper notices were provided; alleged default justification suffices. | Donaghy contends no proper notices were provided, creating a factual dispute. | Fact dispute exists; summary judgment on notices inappropriate. |
| Whether the lender complied with HAMP/MHA handbook requirements before foreclosing. | HAMP compliance not a private right; guidelines allow foreclosure despite noncompliance. | HAMP evaluation/stop-foreclosure obligations create factual issues. | No private right to enforce HAMP; nonetheless factual dispute remains about compliance. |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment given the record questions. | Disputes on notice and potential HAMP issues preclude summary judgment. | Record shows no genuine issues of material fact supporting denial of summary judgment. | Reversed; trial court erred in granting summary judgment; case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co., 163 A.523 (Pa. 1932) (summary judgment requires more than movant’s affidavits to negate issues)
- Hovis v. Sunoco, Inc., 64 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2013) (no automatic admission from failure to answer; issues for trial)
- Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 714 F.3d 769 (4th Cir. 2013) (no private federal right to HAMP relief; not a beneficiary action)
- Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (HAMP contracts not public law; borrower not private rights bearer)
- Markle v. HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA), 844 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D. Mass. 2011) (courtalyzed HAMP directives in foreclosure context)