Case Information

*1 SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF REO, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED PENNSYLVANIA LIABILITIES COMPANY

Appellee

v.

CHARLES K. JACKSON &

BRENDA R. JACKSON

Appellants No. MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 13-1961 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J. FILED APRIL 04, 2017

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: Charles K. Jackson Brenda R. Jackson (the Jacksons) appeal from the order entered the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, which Partners REO, (Housing Opportunity). Upon review, affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts of this follows: Jacksons] executed promissory note ("Note") Mortgage property 1326 Carbon Street, Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 ("Property"). Both documents were recorded Berks County Recorder Deeds Lender National Penn November 2011, the Mortgage were assigned National Association, Trustee Security National Mortgage Loan Trust ("U.S. Bank"). Assignment Berks County Recorder Deeds *2 filed [c]omplaint for mortgage foreclosure against [the Jacksons] on February 12, 2013. alleged [the Jacksons] defaulted under the Mortgage failing to payments due 21, 2007[,] and each month thereafter. Service of the Complaint and Urgent Notice regarding the mortgage foreclosure diversion program was made upon Defendants on [The Jacksons] filed [a]nswer February 14, 2013. [c]omplaint on March 19, 2013. [a]nswer consisted admissions, general denials-mostly regarding the calculation of sums alleged to due-and affirmative defenses consisted of conclusions On April 1, 2013, replied new matter. August 29, 2013, [p]raecipe for [v]oluntary [s]ubstitution [p]laintiff was filed naming new

[p]laintiff on the grounds the Mortgage and were assigned to [Housing Opportunity] assignment dated July 26, 2013[,] on August, 15, 2013. 30, 2013, [Housing filed its motion

for summary judgment with certificate indicating service been made on Jacksons'] counsel on 2, 2013. With answer the motion for summary judgment having been filed, filed motion grant [its] motion for summary on October 2014.

Honorable Timothy J. Rowley, on behalf of the undersigned, summary on October 2014. Alleging champerty, [the Jacksons] filed [p]etition [s]et [a]side [s]ummary [j]udgment October Judge Rowley granted the [petition], vacated the October order, ordered defendant file answer the motion for summary brief within days, scheduled oral the motion for summary judgment, [which] ultimately scheduled for May After 2016[,] argument, the record, granted the [Housing Opportunity's] [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/16, (footnote omitted).

This appeal followed, Jacksons raise the following issue our review: *3 Did the court of common pleas commit error when it granted summary when [Housing had clearly committed champerty when it itself as plaintiff ongoing litigation, thereby substituted preventing the relief sought from being granted?

Brief of Appellant, at

We begin stating our standard scope of review of order granting summary judgment:

Our scope of review is plenary, our standard of review is same as that applied the trial court. appellate court may reverse the entry a only where it finds that the lower erred concluding that the presented genuine issue as to any material fact that it is clear that the moving party entitled a as matter In making this assessment, view the record in light most favorable non-moving party, and all doubts the existence of genuine issue material fact must be resolved against the moving party. As our inquiry involves solely questions of law, our review is de novo.

Thus, our responsibility appellate court determine whether record either establishes that material facts are undisputed or contains insufficient evidence of facts out prima facie cause of action, such that there issue to be decided by fact -finder. If there evidence that would allow fact -finder render verdict non-moving party, then summary should denied.

LEM Guar. Nat. Title Co., 144 A.3d 2016) (en banc) (citation omitted).

The issue presented whether is is properly via the assignment from undisputed was assigned U.S. property. Accordingly, the only issue before us whether *4 the assignment champertous, can be determined matter

law instantly. agreement meeting the definition champerty "one in

person having otherwise interest in subject action undertakes carry the suit at his own expense in consideration of receiving share of what recovered." WFIC, v. LaBarre, 148 A.3d (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting Belfonte Miller, 243 A.2d 150, 1968)).

Instantly, it cannot said Housing Opportunity "otherwise interest" prior the assignment of Bank's interest in property, since entire interest transferred to Housing (presumably transaction ordinary course of business of these institutions). merely latest assignee owner of the Mortgage Note, fact Jacksons do not dispute. Accordingly, real the Jacksons' without legal merit. LEM supra.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

J seph D. Seletyn,

Prothonotary

Date: 4/4/2017