Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Schindler, R., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Schindler, R. No. 3728 EDA 2015

Background

Ronald Schindler obtained a HUD-insured reverse mortgage from Wells Fargo on July 18, 2011, and lived at the property until May 2013, when structural damage caused him to vacate and notify Wells Fargo he would not return.
Wells Fargo sent notice on May 15, 2013 that the loan was due under the mortgage terms and listed cure options (repair, pay, sell at ≤95% of appraised value, or deed in lieu); foreclosure was filed October 18, 2013.
Deval, LLC (servicer) approved that the loan was due and payable on May 31, 2013; Wells Fargo did not commence foreclosure until more than 30 days after notice.
Schindler alleged Wells Fargo failed to satisfy contract/HUD prerequisites: obtain HUD Secretary approval, give proper 30‑day notice, accept or permit deed-in-lieu or a 95% sale option, and improperly foreclosed.
Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted judgment in rem for Wells Fargo; Schindler appealed, arguing procedural and HUD-regulation-based defects; appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wells Fargo failed to satisfy contractual conditions precedent before foreclosing	Schindler: Wells Fargo did not comply with reverse mortgage prerequisites (Secretary approval, notice, alternatives)	Wells Fargo: Contract terms were met—Secretary/servicer approval, notice given, 30 days elapsed, options offered	Court: No genuine issue of material fact; Wells Fargo met contract conditions; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Wells Fargo needed HUD Secretary approval before declaring loan due	Schindler: Secretary approval was required and lacking	Wells Fargo: Servicer/Deval provided approval per record	Held: Record shows approval; condition satisfied
Whether notice was deficient (30‑day HUD notice)	Schindler: Postal records show improper delivery; he didn’t receive HUD‑required notice	Wells Fargo: Notice was sent to address Schindler provided; action taken after notice; Schindler responded with deed in lieu consistent with notice, implying receipt	Held: Notice complied with mortgage terms; foreclosure commenced after 30 days
Whether Wells Fargo was required to accept deed‑in‑lieu or permit 95% sale under HUD regs before foreclosing	Schindler: HUD rules required acceptance or forbearance	Wells Fargo: Property was damaged and failed HUD conveyance conditions; federal regulations do not automatically bar foreclosure; Schindler failed to timely present sale agreement or acceptable deed	Held: HUD regulations did not mandate acceptance as a matter of law; deed-in-lieu was refused for HUD conveyance reasons; Schindler’s late sale offer and defenses were insufficient or waived

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Fulton, 876 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2002) (trial courts must provide independent Rule 1925(a) analysis)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999) (need for judicial articulation supporting dispositive orders)
In re Estate of Moore, 871 A.2d 196 (Pa. Super. 2005) (describes reverse mortgage mechanics)
Bair v. Manor Care of Elizabethtown, PA, LLC, 108 A.3d 94 (Pa. Super. 2015) (contract interpretation is question of law reviewed de novo)
Ramalingam v. Keller Williams Realty Group, Inc., 121 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2015) (rules for contract interpretation and ambiguity)
Wright v. Misty Mountain Farm, LLC, 125 A.3d 814 (Pa. Super. 2015) (summary judgment standard of review)
Fleet Real Estate Funding Corp. v. Smith, 530 A.2d 919 (Pa. Super. 1987) (federal HUD regulations do not automatically preclude foreclosure; may be equitable defense)
Joyce v. Mankham, 465 A.2d 696 (Pa. Super. 1983) (affirmative defenses must be pled to preserve them)
Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (issues waived if not meaningfully developed on appeal)
In re Approval of Special Counsel, 866 A.2d 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (admonition against wholesale adoption of a party's brief for court opinion)