JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Hageman, W.
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Hageman, W. No. 999 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- In 2000 Hageman obtained a mortgage on property in South Canaan; the mortgage was assigned to JP Morgan Chase (Chase) in 2001.
- Chase filed a foreclosure complaint in February 2014 alleging default as of August 1, 2012; Hageman admitted he "suspended" payments beginning after July 2012.
- Hageman claimed he made a $36,000 lump-sum payment in December 2011 that Chase failed to credit, and argued this justified stopping payments.
- Chase submitted a detailed transaction history with its summary judgment motion showing a December 2011 credit of $62,513.93 (including the $36,000 and another ~$26,000 payment) and that Hageman remained delinquent after July 2012.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Chase for the unpaid mortgage balance; after appellate instruction to rule on Hageman’s cross-motion, the trial court denied it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chase failed to credit Hageman’s $36,000 lump-sum payment, excusing later payments | Hageman: Chase did not credit the $36,000, so he was entitled to stop paying | Chase: Transaction history shows $62,513.93 credited in Dec. 2011 (includes $36,000); Hageman defaulted after July 2012 | Held: Chase credited the payments; no factual dispute that Hageman defaulted; summary judgment for Chase affirmed |
| Whether Chase’s alleged noncompliance with VA servicing guidelines creates a factual/equitable defense | Hageman: VA was involved and Chase ignored VA requirements, creating an issue of fact and equitable defense | Chase: No operative factual showing in the record to support a defense; issue was not preserved in the Rule 1925(b) statement | Held: Argument waived for failure to raise in Rule 1925(b); court declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment and scope of appellate review)
- Truax v. Roulhac, 126 A.3d 991 (Pa. Super.) (en banc) (non-moving party bearing burden cannot rely on pleadings to survive summary judgment)
- Gerber v. Piergrossi, 142 A.3d 854 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standing in mortgage foreclosure actions requires origination/assignment or holder of the note)
- First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Strausser, 653 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 1995) (summary judgment appropriate where mortgagor admits delinquency)
- Majorsky v. Douglas, 58 A.3d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to preserve issues by omission from Rule 1925(b) waiver)