LSFB Master Participation Trust v. Dougherty, T.
LSFB Master Participation Trust v. Dougherty, T. No. 1972 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- LSF8 Master Participation Trust filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against Terrence and Lisbet Dougherty on September 2, 2014; defendants answered September 25, 2014.
- Appellee moved for summary judgment on August 10, 2015; Doughertys opposed on January 29, 2016; no oral argument.
- Trial court found the Doughertys’ answer failed to specifically deny material averments (default, nonpayment, amount) and granted summary judgment, entering in rem judgment for $377,748.18.
- Doughertys appealed pro se, raising (1) lack of proper notice of intent to foreclose and (2) lack of servicer standing; only the standing issue was preserved in their Rule 1925(b) statement.
- The court treated general denials as admissions, found Appellee’s pleadings complied with Rule 1147 and produced the promissory note and allonge, and concluded no genuine dispute of standing existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LSF8) | Defendant's Argument (Dougherty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellee failed to give proper notice of intent to foreclose | Notice was proper (not disputed below) | Appellants argued lack of notice violated due process | Issue waived on appeal (not in 1925(b)) |
| Whether servicer/Appellee had standing to foreclose | Complaint complied with Rule 1147; produced note and allonge showing right to enforce | Denied standing; challenged assignments and authenticity of signatures | Court held Appellee had standing; no genuine factual dispute |
| Whether the answer preserved material denials to avoid summary judgment | N/A | Claimed pro se answer should be liberally construed to create issues of fact | Pro se status does not excuse failure to make specific denials; general denials deemed admissions; summary judgment proper |
| Whether chain-of-possession defects defeat enforceability of the note | Chain of possession immaterial if holder of note enforces it | Argued assignments/indorsements were invalid | Court held chain defects irrelevant; indorsement/allonge sufficed to show enforceability |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirwin v. Sussman Auto., 149 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2014) (mortgagee entitled to summary judgment when default, nonpayment, and amount are admitted)
- Deek Inv., L.P. v. Murray, 157 A.3d 491 (Pa. Super. 2017) (pro se litigants are bound by procedural rules)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barbezat, 131 A.3d 65 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Rule 1147 pleading requirements and holder of note entitled to enforce it)
- PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Powell, 100 A.3d 611 (Pa. Super. 2014) (indorsement on an allonge establishes mortgagee’s right to enforce the note)