U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Longstreet, T., U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Longstreet, T. No. 1437 EDA 2016

Background

In 2004 Todd and Donna Longstreet executed a mortgage and adjustable-rate note (original principal $200,100) with Argent; the mortgage was recorded in 2005.
The mortgage was assigned through Ameriquest to Wachovia, later serviced by America’s Servicing Company/Wells Fargo; the Longstreets entered three loan modification agreements (2008, 2009, 2010) acknowledging revised unpaid balances.
The Longstreets defaulted by missing payments beginning October 1, 2011; the mortgage was assigned to U.S. Bank in July 2013 and U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure complaint in August 2013.
A default judgment was entered in October 2013, later opened at the Longstreets’ request; they answered in October 2014 asserting U.S. Bank lacked possession/standing and alleging improper assignments/indorsements.
U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment in October 2015 attaching the note (showing a special indorsement then an indorsement in blank), assignment documents, and an affidavit of Wells Fargo loan-documentation VP attesting possession; the trial court granted summary judgment and entered an in rem judgment for U.S. Bank.
On appeal the Longstreets argued (1) U.S. Bank lacked standing/possession of the original note, (2) their Answer was not a boilerplate admission, and (3) summary judgment was premature because discovery was incomplete; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S. Bank)	Defendant's Argument (Longstreets)	Held
Standing/possession of the note	U.S. Bank produced the note showing a special indorsement and an indorsement in blank and an affidavit attesting possession; that establishes holder status.	Longstreets argued the Complaint did not allege possession and Thomas’s affidavit was equivocal; asserted U.S. Bank admitted it had not established possession.	Court held U.S. Bank demonstrated holder status (note indorsed in blank and in U.S. Bank’s possession); standing established.
Effect of Longstreets’ Answer/denials	Allegations in complaint were supported and required specific denials; general denials operate as admissions under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(b).	Longstreets argued their responses were more than general denials and that Pautenis shows they might lack sufficient information to admit amounts due.	Court held the Longstreets’ responses were boilerplate general denials constituting admissions; they produced no specific evidence to show lack of knowledge, so amounts and default were admitted.
Adequacy of discovery / timing of summary judgment	Summary judgment appropriate where additional discovery would not produce a genuine issue of material fact; parties had extensive time and discovery.	Longstreets claimed U.S. Bank obstructed depositions and withheld documents, so further discovery was needed to show possession/standing.	Court held ample discovery had occurred and additional discovery would not have produced material facts; summary judgment was proper.
Overall entitlement to summary judgment	U.S. Bank argued it met elements for summary judgment in foreclosure: holder/assignee, default admitted, recorded mortgage balance shown.	Longstreets disputed standing and factual disputes remained.	Court affirmed summary judgment for U.S. Bank.

Key Cases Cited

Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 37 A.3d 1175 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holder entitled to summary judgment where mortgagor admits default and obligation unpaid)
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2013) (ways to prove standing: origin/assignment of mortgage or holder of specially/blank indorsed note)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386 (Pa. Super. 2015) (homeowner may rely on lack of sufficient information to deny amount where specific evidence supports that inability)
Manzetti v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 776 A.2d 938 (Pa. 2001) (summary judgment may be entered before completion of discovery when further discovery would not aid material facts)
Gerber v. Piergrossi, 142 A.3d 854 (Pa. Super. 2016) (assignment evidence can establish mortgage ownership)
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barbezat, 131 A.3d 65 (Pa. Super. 2016) (effective assignment places assignee in assignor’s shoes)
First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Strausser, 653 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 1995) (general denial of amount owed constitutes admission)