JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray
63 A.3d 1258
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Murray, pro se, appeals a March 26, 2012 order granting summary judgment to JPMorgan Chase Bank in a mortgage foreclosure action.
- Original plaintiff was Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. as Trustee for WaMu 2000-1; mortgagee identified as Great Western Bank d/b/a Sierra Western Mortgage Co.
- Mortgage and Note allegedly passed through two assignments (Deutsche Bank Assignment, WaMu Assignment) and mergers to JPMorgan Chase as substituted plaintiff.
- Murray challenged standing, assignments, and the Note’s possessory chain; sought dismissal and disputed verification.
- Trial court denied Murray’s preliminary objection; later, summary judgment was granted for Appellee; on appeal, standing and verification issues were reaffirmed as grounds for reversal.
- Court held that material questions exist about possession of the original Note and the correct party in interest; case remanded with instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Appellee have standing to foreclose given unresolved possession of the Note? | Murray argues lack of proven chain of assignment and holder in due course. | Appellee, as successor in interest, need not prove every link at filing per Mallory. | Remanded; material issue of fact on possession-negotiable instrument prevents summary judgment. |
| Is the Complaint verification under Rule 1024(c) defective to support summary judgment? | Verification by JPMorgan officer suffices to verify records for plaintiff. | Verification improperly signed on behalf of plaintiff; lacks compliance with Rule 1024(c). | Reversed; remand to cure verification; judgment cannot stand without proper verification. |
| Was substitution of JPMorgan as plaintiff proper under Rule 2352(a)? | Substitution valid as real party in interest given succession and possession. | (chain-of-title concerns and possessory issues) substitution cannot be final without clear possession. | Remanded; if possession issues persist, determine successor status on remand. |
| Do the alleged irregularities in the Deutsche Bank and WaMu assignments undermine enforceability? | Assignments show chain to Appellee; irregularities are immaterial if PUCC applies. | Not proper entities named; irregularities require careful review and could affect standing. | Remanded; need evidentiary development to address irregularities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2009) (foreclosure plaintiff may rely on unsubstantiated assignment to plead prima facie case)
- Fourtees Co. v. Sterling Equip. Corp., 363 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 1976) (standing requires proof plaintiff is owner of claim)
- Produce Factors Corp. v. Brown, 179 A.2d 919 (Pa. Super. 1962) (protections for defendant against strangers to contract; need proof of ownership)
- Brown v. Esposito, 42 A.2d 93 (Pa. Super. 1945) (standing requires actual contractual interest)
- Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Sq., 405 A.2d 954 (Pa. Super. 1979) (verification and defense against spurious allegations; liberal amendment suggested)
- Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. 2003) (verification defective; amendment may be required; strict 1024(c) compliance)
- Rosenberry v. Evans, 48 A.3d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2012) (summary judgment requires documentary evidence; credibility concerns in affidavits)