Sass v. Amtrust Bank
74 A.3d 1054
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Consolidated appeals challenge FIRREA’s applicability to state-court declaratory judgment and in rem mortgage foreclosure actions.
- AmTrust Bank’s foreclosure action against Mildred Sass was pursued in Sass I; Sass II sought a declaratory judgment that the mortgage was void ab initio based on closing-agent misappropriation.
- FDIC placed AmTrust into receivership and transferred servicing rights to Nationstar, which substituted as plaintiff in Sass I.
- Sass pursued discovery motions; the court granted sanctions and Sass moved for summary judgment in Sass I and Sass II.
- Nationstar failed to timely respond to summary-judgment motions and did not appear at a hearing; deemed admissions followed, leading to summary judgments in Sass I and Sass II.
- The appellate court ultimately vacated the Sass II declaratory judgment (FIRREA bar) but quashed Nationstar’s appeal of Sass I (rescission defense) due to untimeliness; overall, FIRREA barred the declaratory judgment but did not bar the defense of rescission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FIRREA deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over Sass II? | Nationstar argues FIRREA divests courts of jurisdiction over pre-assignment conduct. | Sass contends defenses/affirmative defenses are not ‘actions’ or ‘claims’ and thus not barred. | Yes; FIRREA bars Sass II declaratory judgment. |
| Did the trial court err in granting Sass's summary-judgment motions on Sass I and Sass II? | Nationstar asserts the court lacked jurisdiction and misapplied discovery/summary-judgment standards. | Sass argues valid defenses/affirmative defenses entitled relief; discovery issues supported summary judgment. | No error in Sass I; Sass II summary judgment nullified by FIRREA bar. |
| Are Nationstar's reconsideration motions moot or timely? | Nationstar claims reconsideration could toll appeal time and preserve review. | Sass insists timeliness rules are jurisdictional and not tolled by reconsideration petitions. | Nationstar untimely appeals); reconsideration motions did not toll appeal period. |
| Was Nationstar's Motion to Strike/Open/Vacate properly denied? | Nationstar contends court deprived of jurisdiction and erred in denying relief. | Court acted within FIRREA’s framework and addressed defenses; no jurisdictional bar to these defenses. | Affirmative; motion was appropriately denied; not dispositive of merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- City Savings & Trust Co. v. City Sav., F.S.B., 28 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 1994) (FIRREA §1821(d)(13)(D) bars actions seeking rights in assets; applies to debtors and creditors)
- National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. City Sav., F.S.B., 28 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 1994) (persuades FIRREA reach; supports jurisdictional limits on claims)
- City Savings, N.A. v. City Sav., F.S.B., 28 F.3d 393 (3d Cir. 1994) (defenses/affirmative defenses not ‘actions’ or ‘claims’ barred by FIRREA; rescission defenses allowed)
- Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 777 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (summary-judgment standards; burden on movant and non-movant)
- Ertel v. Patriot-News Co., 674 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 1996) (summary-judgment standard; appellate review scope)
- Cheathem v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 743 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (timeliness tolling for reconsideration; express grant required)
- Moore v. Moore, 634 A.2d 163 (Pa. 1993) (timeliness and appeal periods in final orders)
- Valentine v. Wroten, 580 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (timeliness and tolling rules for appeals)