U.S. Bank, N.A. Ex Rel. Bank of America, N.A. v. Pautenis
118 A.3d 386
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- U.S. Bank, N.A. appealed from a Delaware County foreclosure judgment in favor of Christine Pautenis (Home Owner).
- Loan originated with WaMu; note and mortgage assigned to Chase then reportedly to U.S. Bank via chain described in FDIC transfer.
- Trial was a one-day bench trial on Feb. 25, 2014; the court sustained Home Owner’s evidentiary objections and excluded several U.S. Bank exhibits.
- Trial verdict entered in Home Owner’s favor on Mar. 3, 2014; U.S. Bank moved for post-trial relief, which the court initially dismissed as untimely.
- This appeal challenges (i) timeliness of post-trial motion; (ii) trial court’s evidentiary rulings (judicial notice, note, default notice, and debt amount); and (iii) dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of post-trial motion | U.S. Bank filed timely post-trial motion | Trial court dismissed as untimely | Timely as to filing period (ten days after notice) |
| Judicial notice of Chase ownership/transfer | Chase owned and had authority to assign the mortgage/note; trial court should take judicial notice | No sufficient trial evidence; request improper without trial evidence | No reversible error; standing issue not resolved on this record |
| Exclusion of promissory note copies | Note copies should be admitted to prove debt and standing | Court properly excluded due to trustworthiness/ownership concerns | Exclusion upheld; no reversal on this basis |
| Exclusion of default notice | Default/acceleration notice should be admitted | No showing of prejudice from exclusion | Exclusion not shown to be prejudicial; no reversal on this basis |
| Evidence of amount of debt | Bank must prove exact amount owed; debt amount should be admitted | Home Owner could contest amount; bank failed to present trustworthy records | Bank’s debt-amount evidence properly excluded; no admission or judgment for amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond Reo Truck Co. v. Mid-Pac. Indus., Inc., 806 A.2d 423 (Pa. Super. 2002) (post-trial issues should be framed for appellate review; no remand needed)
- Knowles v. Levan, 15 A.3d 504 (Pa. Super. 2011) (harmful effect required for evidentiary rulings to warrant reversal)
- First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Strausser, 653 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 1995) (general denials may admit facts; context for mortgage debt disputes)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holder of the note may enforce if original or properly indorsed; chain-of-possession issue)
- Landau v. Western Pennsylvania National Bank, 282 A.2d 335 (Pa. 1971) (summary judgment proper where default and amount stated; differs from case here)