U.S. Bank N.A. v. O'Meara, D.
U.S. Bank N.A. v. O'Meara, D. No. 3552 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Mortgage on 915 Buck Run Rd, Downingtown PA secured by 2006 note of $1,045,000; Stonebridge Bank to JP Morgan Chase via assignment (2006) and to US Bank, as Trustee ChaseFlex Trust Series 2006-2 (2012/2013); borrower defaulted in 2010; Act 91 notice sent Sept 2010; foreclosure suit filed Dec 3, 2013; bench trial held June 8, 2016; in rem verdict for plaintiff $1,600,957.43 plus interest and costs; post-trial motion denied Sept 27, 2016; appeal filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose | US Bank possessed the Note and was holder; no pre-recorded assignment needed | Standing contested due to assignment irregularities and identity of holder | Bank held standing due to possession of the Note; affirmed |
| Validity of assignments | Assignments valid; holder stands in shoes of assignor | Defendant questioned final assignment and authority | Assignments valid; defendant lacks standing to challenge validity of assignments |
| Act 91 notice sufficiency and waiver | Notice was timely; waiver due to failure to raise objection | Notice defective under Act 91, disputed pre-trial | Argument waived; notice deemed sufficient; Act 91 is procedural and not jurisdictional |
| Admission of business records as to amount due | Records kept in course of business; properly admitted under 803(6) and 6108 | Records unreliable or improperly kept; insufficient foundation | Business records properly admitted; amount due proven by witnesses and records |
| Proof of amount due | Evidence from SPS and JP Morgan Chase established payoff balance | Discrepancies in records; challenges to data integrity | Court accepted testimony and records; $1,600,957.43 established as due |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (standing based on possession of note; no need for pre-recorded assignment)
- J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (holder-enforcement of negotiable note; chain of possession relevant)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barbezat, 131 A.3d 65 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (requirement to name parties and assignments in foreclosure pleadings)
- Mallory, N.A. v. US Bank, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (recording not prerequisite to standing to seek enforcement)
- In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) (standing to challenge assignments under pooling/servicing agreements)