NS/CS Highland, LLC. v. Tamiment 503, L.P., 3147 EDA 2018

NS/CS Highland, LLC (assignee of CapitalSource) filed a commercial mortgage foreclosure suit on Dec. 20, 2016 to enforce a construction loan secured by an open‑end mortgage on ~2,500 acres formerly the Tamiment/Unity House Resort in Pike County, PA.
The loan matured July 15, 2016; Tamiment entities (Appellants) failed to repay the principal on the maturity date and admitted default in pleadings/requests for admission.
Highland moved for summary judgment under Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1) on June 4, 2018, supporting the motion with the complaint, loan and mortgage documents, assignment instruments, and an affidavit from the mortgage servicer stating the total due ($156,736,437.10 as of June 1, 2018).
Appellants opposed, arguing discovery was incomplete (discovery informally suspended during settlement talks) and that the amount owed was contested; they relied largely on boilerplate denials.
The trial court granted summary judgment on Sept. 25, 2018 for $156,736,437.10 plus per diem interest; Appellants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Highland)	Defendant's Argument (Tamiment)	Held
Whether SJ was improper because discovery was incomplete under Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2	SJ under 1035.2(1) was proper because no additional discovery could establish any material fact	Discovery was informally stayed and unfinished; further discovery could show facts material to the amount owed	Court: SJ proper under 1035.2(1); completion of discovery not required where additional discovery would not aid material facts; no record support that discovery stay prevented adjudication
Whether the in rem judgment amount ($156,736,437.10) was improper because amount was disputed	Loan docs and servicer affidavit established amount due; Appellants failed to produce contrary evidence	Amount was "hotly disputed" and should not have been fixed on SJ	Court: Amount supported by records and servicer affidavit; Appellants’ boilerplate denials/admissions to requests for admission treated as admissions; no evidence controverting amount—judgment affirmed

Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 895 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2006) (summary judgment standard and plenary appellate review)
Manzetti v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 776 A.2d 938 (Pa. 2001) (SJ may be entered before completion of discovery if additional discovery would not establish material facts)
Landau v. Western Pennsylvania National Bank, 282 A.2d 335 (Pa. 1971) (in foreclosure, SJ proper where default is admitted and recorded mortgage specifies amount)
Cunningham v. McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1998) (mortgagee entitled to SJ when mortgagor admits default and fails to sustain a defense)
Gateway Towers Condo. Ass'n v. Krohn, 845 A.2d 855 (Pa. Super. 2004) (foreclosure SJ appropriate where mortgagor admits default and has no cognizable defense)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386 (Pa. Super. 2015) (mortgagors are principally situated to make specific denials about indebtedness)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2014) (general denials of knowledge about principal/interest are treated as admissions)