US Bank National Assoc. v. Cataldo, D., 1571 WDA 2015

In 2003 Debra Cataldo executed a mortgage and note on property in Allegheny County; she later defaulted and stopped paying in August 2011.
The mortgage was originally held by IMPAC Funding Corp. d/b/a Novelle Financial Services and later assigned to U.S. Bank (plaintiff).
U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure complaint in 2012 and sought summary judgment after providing the note and related documents.
Cataldo challenged U.S. Bank’s standing, pointing to discrepancies between copies of the note and an allonge (e.g., barcode differences) and questioned whether U.S. Bank possessed the original negotiable instrument.
The trial court initially denied summary judgment, U.S. Bank supplemented the record with an affidavit explaining barcode differences and asserting possession of the original, and the court later granted summary judgment for $85,453.43.
On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, concluding U.S. Bank held a bearer (blank-endorsed) note and the Nanty‑Glo rule did not bar reliance on the affidavit plus Cataldo’s admissions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether U.S. Bank had standing/enforceable note	U.S. Bank is holder of a bearer (blank-endorsed) note and possesses the original; enforceability does not depend on full chain of possession	Cataldo argued barcode and copy discrepancies raise genuine issues about provenance and whether U.S. Bank is a holder in due course	Court held U.S. Bank holds a bearer note; questions as to chain of possession are immaterial if holder proves it holds the note; summary judgment permitted
Whether relying on an affidavit violated Nanty‑Glo (prohibiting summary judgment based solely on oral testimony/affidavits)	U.S. Bank submitted an affidavit explaining barcode differences and relied on Cataldo’s recorded admissions to negate factual disputes	Cataldo argued the affidavit alone cannot resolve document authenticity discrepancies under Nanty‑Glo	Court held Nanty‑Glo not violated because U.S. Bank’s affidavit used Cataldo’s admissions and documentary evidence to eliminate genuine issues of material fact

Nanty‑Glo v. Am. Surety Co., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932) (limits reliance on testimonial affidavits/deposition testimony for summary judgment)
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2013) (enforcement proper despite chain‑of‑possession questions if holder proves it holds the note)
Cunningham v. McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1998) (holder entitled to summary judgment where mortgagor admits default and debt amount)
Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2006) (explaining Nanty‑Glo and exceptions for admissions)
Indalex, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 83 A.3d 418 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)