Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2004-PR2 Trust v. Litus
3:12-cv-02124
M.D. Penn.Mar 24, 2014Background
- Property: 1085 Cherry Lane, East Stroudsburg, PA (non-primary residence of defendants).
- Loan: Defendants executed a $254,000 promissory note and mortgage to Washington Mutual Bank on June 24, 2004; plaintiff is the current holder and recorded an assignment before suit.
- Payment history: Defendants ceased payments after August 1, 2010; Plaintiff sent a preforeclosure notice on October 15, 2010.
- Amount due: Plaintiff's statement of material facts lists $329,222.84 due as of December 31, 2013.
- Procedure: Plaintiff moved for summary judgment (Feb. 24, 2014); defendants filed no opposition and Local Rule 7.6 deems the motion unopposed. Court analyzed merits and granted summary judgment in rem for foreclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue on note/mortgage | Plaintiff is the possessor/holder of the note and entitled to enforce it | Plaintiff lacks standing | Court: Plaintiff has standing as possessor of the note to prosecute the action |
| Entitlement to foreclosure (default) | Mortgage, note, assignment, default, and amount due are established | Defendants did not contest facts; admissions in record | Court: All statutory elements satisfied; summary judgment appropriate |
| Mortgage modification request | Request for modification does not bar foreclosure; no obligation to modify | Defendants asserted modification efforts and alleged instructions to stop payments | Court: Modification claim and related assertions do not create a genuine issue; no contractual duty to modify |
| Amount due / accounting | Amount due stated; accounting not required before sheriff's sale | Defendants may dispute amount | Court: Amount in a sum certain is acceptable for judgment; disputes over daily accrual do not defeat foreclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party's burden on summary judgment)
- Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (genuine issue/materiality standard)
- Conoshenti v. Public Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (inferences for nonmoving party)
- Abramson v. William Patterson College of N.J., 260 F.3d 265 (view facts favorably to plaintiff)
- Cunningham v. McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (elements for summary judgment in mortgage foreclosure)
- Landau v. Western Pennsylvania Nat'l Bank, 282 A.2d 335 (Pa.) (amount due and accounting rules in foreclosure)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Francis X. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (possessor of note may enforce it)