Wilmington Trust v. Saft, S.
Wilmington Trust v. Saft, S. No. 1750 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 11, 2017Background
- In 2005 the Safts executed a $550,000 promissory note and mortgage on 525 Hoffman Drive, Bryn Mawr; the note was endorsed in blank.
- Bank of America, N.A. (later substituted by Wilmington Trust as trustee) asserted it possessed the note and that the mortgage had been assigned to it; it filed foreclosure on July 28, 2014.
- The Safts answered with general denials and claimed lack of information regarding recorded matters and sought a full accounting, arguing the lender lacked the original mortgage and business records.
- BANA moved for summary judgment (seeking an in rem judgment of $600,893.78) and attached a SunTrust servicing-affidavit with a loan history; the Safts objected, seeking to strike the affidavit as hearsay.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for BANA; the Safts appealed, arguing the court impermissibly relied on an inadmissible affidavit and that there was no properly recorded chain of mortgage title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BANA/Wilmington Trust) | Defendant's Argument (Saft) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because it relied on an inadmissible affidavit | Affidavit and incorporated public records support default and amount due; also produced assignment and the bearer note | Affidavit is inadmissible hearsay; summary judgment cannot be predicated on it | Court: Even absent affidavit, Safts’ pleadings admitted default and BANA produced assignment and bearer note; affidavit objection did not defeat summary judgment |
| Whether foreclosing party had standing / proper chain of title | BANA produced assignment and held the note (endorsed in blank); holder of note or assignee may foreclose | There is no properly recorded mortgage chain; BANA lacked authority/standing to foreclose | Court: BANA established standing via assignment and possession of the bearer note; Safts’ generalized denials constituted admissions of default, so standing/amounts supported summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Borough of Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co. of New York, 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932) (limits on relying on moving party's oral testimony in support of summary judgment)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2014) (general denials asserting lack of information in foreclosure pleadings may operate as admissions)
- Gerber v. Piergrossi, 142 A.3d 854 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standing in foreclosure shown by origination/assignment of mortgage or possession of note endorsed in blank)