The Bank of New York Mellon v. Pryor, M.
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Pryor, M. No. 2610 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Pryor executed a $315,000 mortgage in 2007; mortgage ownership was eventually transferred to The Bank of New York Mellon, which commenced foreclosure in April 2014 for payments missing since November 2007.
- By April 2014 Bank sought in rem judgment (amount alleged then ~$620k); by summary judgment the Bank sought recovery based on Appellant's long-term default and supporting affidavit/payoff calculation.
- Pryor filed a pro se answer, new matter, and counterclaim alleging fraud in the inducement, predatory lending, exorbitant interest, and bad faith, and sought damages and attorneys’ fees.
- The trial court overruled preliminary objections to the counterclaim, but Pryor largely failed to respond to discovery (interrogatories and document requests) served in December 2014.
- Bank moved for summary judgment in May 2015; Pryor opposed, alleging genuine issues of material fact on fraud and asserting discovery was incomplete.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to the Bank on July 15, 2015 (judgment $655,218.18 plus interest), dismissed Pryor’s counterclaim with prejudice, and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Bank's Argument | Pryor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bank was entitled to summary judgment on foreclosure | Bank showed default, payment history, affidavit/payoff; no viable defense existed | Fraud in inducement/predatory lending created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment | Granted for Bank: mortgagor admitted default and Bank established elements for foreclosure; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether Pryor’s fraud-in-the-inducement counterclaim could survive summary judgment | Counterclaim was permitted if tied to creation of mortgage, but Pryor failed to produce evidence or engage in discovery to carry burden | Fraud claims implicated the loan’s origination and required further discovery to identify misrepresentations and actors | Dismissed: Pryor failed to meet her burden and produced no evidence; no genuine issue of material fact shown |
| Whether summary judgment was premature because discovery was incomplete | Motion proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists; summary judgment can be filed before close of discovery under Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2 | Trial court cut off discovery prematurely; additional discovery would yield material evidence supporting fraud claim | No error: Pryor had ample time, failed to pursue discovery, and did not show that further discovery would produce material facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunningham v. McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (mortgagee entitled to foreclose on default when mortgagor admits nonpayment)
- Gateway Towers Condominium Ass'n v. Krohn, 845 A.2d 855 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (summary judgment proper where mortgagor admits failure to pay and defense is not cognizable)
- E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin, 68 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (summary judgment standard and review)
- Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., 874 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (elements of fraud in the inducement)
- Green Tree Consumer Discount Co. v. Newton, 909 A.2d 811 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (counterclaims in foreclosure must arise from same transaction creating the mortgage)
- Reeves v. Middletown Athletic Ass'n, 866 A.2d 1115 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (summary judgment not premature where nonmoving party had sufficient time for discovery but failed to pursue it)