PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Powell, R.
100 A.3d 611
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- PHH filed a mortgage foreclosure in 2010 seeking in rem relief against the Powells for default on a 2007 purchase-money loan secured by a Mercer County property.
- PHH alleged the Powells signed the Mortgage and a Note (indorsed via an Allonge) with ARMCO as lender, later assigned to PHH.
- Powells admitted signing at closing statements but denied ever borrowing or signing the loan documents in pleadings; they did not present evidence to rebut the presumption of signatures during summary judgment proceedings.
- PHH moved for summary judgment multiple times; the trial court ultimately granted the second motion for summary judgment in 2013, with judgment in the amount of $223,536.22 and related costs.
- Powells appealed pro se arguing, among other things, that they never signed the Note or that PHH lacked standing/possession to enforce the Note.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court, quashed certain affidavit submissions, and held PHH into evidence as holder in due course with possession of the original Note and Allonge supporting enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Note was signed by the Powells | Powells deny signing the Note; PHH proved signatures. | Powells contend signatures are invalid or not theirs. | Signatures presumed authentic; PHH bore burden to rebut; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether PHH possessed the original Note and Allonge to enforce | PHH possesses the original Note and Allonge; entitled to enforce. | Powells argue original note may be with Fannie Mae; PHH not holder in due course. | PHH shown to be holder in due course with possession; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupori, 8 A.3d 919 (Pa. Super. 2010) (mortgagee as real party in interest in foreclosure)
- U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2009) (owner vs. right to enforce in foreclosure)
- Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2013) (whether original note and allonge are in plaintiff's possession; summary judgment not proper on that basis)
- Triffin v. Dillabough, 670 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 1998) (signature validity and burdens in PUCC actions)
- McCarthy v. Dan LePore & Sons Co., Inc., 724 A.2d 938 (Pa. Super. 1998) (burdens regarding signature verification and prima facie proofs)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 317 A.2d 258 (Pa. 1974) (note on record certification standards under appellate procedure)