Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Costantino, P.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Costantino, P. No. 607 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Appellant Patrick F. Constantino executed a residential mortgage and promissory note to Wachovia Bank, N.A. on May 5, 2007; Wells Fargo is successor by merger and filed this foreclosure action.
- Appellant defaulted by failing to make payments after January 26, 2012; last payment was December 28, 2011.
- Wells Fargo sought in rem foreclosure judgment for amounts due (complaint alleged $278,678.91 through May 8, 2014; judgment later entered for $322,327.95 plus interest and costs).
- Appellant filed an Answer with a New Matter that largely raised legal conclusions and irrelevant allegations (including an assertion about cross-collateralization with his ex-wife’s loan).
- Wells Fargo supported its summary judgment motion with the mortgage, note, affidavit of default, loan history, and proof of Act 6/91 notice; Appellant did not attach affidavits, documents, or specific factual denials.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, ruling Appellant had admitted default and amounts due by nonspecific denials, waived many issues by an overbroad/unclear Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and failed to create genuine issues of material fact regarding the cross-collateralization claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant waived appellate issues by filing an overbroad/unclear Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement | Wells Fargo: appellant’s 14‑issue, incoherent concise statement thwarts meaningful review and warrants waiver | Constantino: argued issues were preserved despite the concise statement | Court: Waiver — the concise statement was not concise/coherent and impeded review; issues deemed waived |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist | Wells Fargo: record (mortgage, note, affidavit, loan history, Act notices) establishes no material factual dispute and supports in rem judgment | Constantino: contended his New Matter raised factual issues and asserted cross-collateralization made the mortgage unlawful; also generally denied default/amounts due | Court: Summary judgment proper — appellant’s general denials were treated as admissions (no specific payment allegations), he relied on pleadings without evidentiary support, and failed to produce evidence creating a factual dispute |
| Whether cross-collateralization with ex‑wife’s loan rendered the mortgage unlawful | Wells Fargo: cross-collateralization allegations were unsupported, not in the record, and irrelevant to the mortgage foreclosure on appellant’s loan | Constantino: asserted cross-collateralization occurred after divorce and violated banking regulations, rendering the mortgage unlawful | Court: Held against Constantino — claim unsupported by documentary evidence or factual allegations in the record; no material fact shown to dispute foreclosure |
| Whether appellant’s general denials preclude summary judgment | Wells Fargo: general denials constitute deemed admissions when defendant fails to specify payments or facts within his control | Constantino: argued denials were sufficient to contest default/amounts | Court: Held that nonspecific denials were deemed admissions under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(b); summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (standard of review on summary judgment and that court must view record in favor of nonmoving party)
- In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to cite authority in an appellate brief may constitute waiver)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate arguments must comply with briefing rules; undeveloped arguments are waived)
- First Wisconsin Nat’l Bank v. Strausser, 653 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 1995) (general denial of amounts due is treated as admission; supports summary judgment)
- Jiricko v. GEICO Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Rule 1925(b) statement is crucial to preserve issues for appeal)
- Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 (Pa. Super. 2004) (overly broad or numerous Rule 1925(b) issues can result in waiver; complexity of case is a relevant consideration)