Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Elsesser, M., 608 MDA 2017

In 2006 Elsesser executed a note and mortgage for $173,000; payments stopped in March 2012. Nationstar filed foreclosure in June 2013.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Nationstar on July 7, 2014 after Nationstar produced the original endorsed note at a July 17, 2014 hearing.
Elsesser appealed and this Court previously held Nationstar, as holder of the original negotiable note, had standing to foreclose. That ruling was affirmed on a subsequent appeal denying Elsesser’s petition to strike the judgment.
After a stay was lifted, Nationstar purchased the property at sheriff’s sale on January 6, 2017. Elsesser moved to set aside the sale and vacate the judgment; the trial court denied relief on March 21, 2017.
Elsesser’s new challenge focuses on photocopies of the note: one image lacked an endorsement (attached to a 2015 motion) while the earlier motion for summary judgment attached an endorsed copy; he contends this undermines authenticity and shows fraud/securitization problems.
The Superior Court found these claims relitigated issues already decided under the law-of-the-case doctrine, deemed the appeal frivolous and dilatory, affirmed the denial, and remanded to determine appeal costs and counsel fees for Nationstar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Elsesser)	Defendant's Argument (Nationstar)	Held
1. Whether extrinsic fraud warrants setting aside the sheriff's sale	Elsesser: competing photocopies and timing of production show extrinsic fraud that voids the sale and judgment	Nationstar: produced the original endorsed note at the hearing and had established standing; photocopies do not undermine that	Court: Denied — relitigation of standing barred by law of the case; no extrinsic fraud shown
2. Whether selectively producing two versions of the note proves intentional fraud sufficient to vacate judgment	Elsesser: existence of an unendorsed photocopy versus an endorsed copy demonstrates intentional fabrication or fraud	Nationstar: the original endorsed negotiable note was in Nationstar's possession and proved ownership/standing	Court: Denied — issue already decided; photocopy differences do not negate prior finding of standing
3. Whether equitable relief should void the judgment and sale because enforcement is inequitable	Elsesser: securitization and note inconsistencies make enforcement unjust	Nationstar: enforcement appropriate; prior rulings preclude relitigation	Court: Denied — equitable relief not warranted; appeal frivolous and for delay

Kurns v. Soo Line R.R., 72 A.3d 636 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appellant cannot raise issues in a later appeal that could have been raised previously)
Jackson v. Modern Mailers, Inc., 537 A.2d 878 (Pa. Super. 1988) (frivolous appeals may justify awarding counsel fees and costs)