Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Malehorn
16 A.3d 1138
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Foreclosure action between MERS and Betty Malehorn over property with Miller's mobile home on 1.55 acres; Miller purchased the mobile home in 2001 and entered into an installment land-sale contract granting potential subdivision rights to the Malehorns; subdivision/variance issues block Miller's continued rights and influence the property interests.
- Mortgage related chain of transfers: 2002 mortgage by Betty Malehorn to First Central Mortgage, later assigned to MERS in 2003; mortgage default leads to foreclosure.
- Miller continued paying until 2004 when township subdivision was denied; after that she stopped payments.
- Miller filed Petition to Intervene with a proposed Answer containing nine cross-claims and counterclaims in 2009; trial court denied on March 10, 2010.
- Miller pursued related proceedings in bankruptcy court and zoning actions; ejectment action pending; appeal filed April 9, 2010; court 1925(a) opinion issued September 9, 2010.
- Court ultimately quashes Miller’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction under Pa.R.A.P. 313 collateral order doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller is an indispensable party under Pennsylvania law | Miller’s property interests and standing require intervention | Intervention unnecessary; no direct stake essential to foreclosure outcome | No; order not appealable under collateral-order doctrine; petition intervention not indispensable |
| Whether the trial court erred by applying res judicata to Miller's claims | Res judicata bars relitigation of ownership issues previously adjudicated | Previously adjudicated issues in bankruptcy/ zoning proceedings bind Miller | No reversible error; res judicata supported dismissal of intervention |
| Whether manifest injustice warranted de novo consideration despite res judicata | Manifest injustice due to fraud/standing issues necessitates de novo review | Remedies available in other forums; no irreparable loss without final review | No; collateral-order review not proper; no irreparable loss; appeal quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass'n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (collateral-order review requires three-pronged test but must be clearly satisfied)
- Geniviva v. Frisk, 725 A.2d 1209 (Pa. 1999) (public-policy/legal-rights considerations for collateral orders)
- In re J.S., 980 A.2d 117 (Pa.Super. 2009) (issue separable from central litigation; standards for collateral-order analysis)
- Nemirovsky v. Nemirovsky, 776 A.2d 988 (Pa.Super. 2001) (rights deeply rooted in public policy; governing collateral-order analysis)
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (policy considerations in assessing third-prong viability of collateral-order review)
- Geniviva v. Frisk, 555 Pa. 589, 725 A.2d 1209 (Pa. 1999) (reiterates three-prong test and public-policy considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 876 A.2d 939 (Pa. 2005) (collateral-order jurisdiction considerations)