Opinion
J-A17014-17 No. 3039 EDA 2016
08-08-2017
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION Appellee v. LINDA BONNIE SCRIPNICENCU Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment August 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2014-04415 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Linda Bonnie Scripnicencu, appeals from the summary judgment entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of Appellee, Federal National Mortgage Association ("FNMA"), in this mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm.
On March 13, 2017, FNMA filed a "substitution of successor" pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2352, naming LSF9 Master Participation Trust as the successor plaintiff in this case.
In its supplemental opinion filed June 16, 2017, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises four issues for our review:
DID THE COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW BY GRANTING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST [APPELLANT?](Appellant's Brief at 2).
DID THE COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW BY FINDING FOR [FNMA] DESPITE [ITS] FAILURE TO PRESENT PROPER PROOF OF STANDING?
DID THE COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW BY ALLOWING [FNMA] TO PROCEED EVEN WITHOUT GIVING PROPER NOTICE GIVEN THE FACT [APPELLANT'S HUSBAND] HAD PASSED AWAY?
DID THE COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW IN FINDING FOR [FNMA] DESPITE [APPELLANT'S] SOUND ARGUMENTS IN FACT AND LAW?
Initially we observe:
Our scope of review of an order granting summary judgment is plenary. We apply the same standard as the trial court, reviewing all the evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered.
Motions for summary judgment necessarily and directly implicate the plaintiff's proof of the elements of [its] cause of action. Summary judgment is proper if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. Thus, a record that supports summary judgment will either (1) show the material facts are undisputed or (2) contain insufficient evidence of facts
to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense and, therefore, there is no issue to be submitted to the jury. Upon appellate review, we are not bound by the trial court's conclusions of law, but may reach our own conclusions. The appellate Court may disturb the trial court's order only upon an error of law or an abuse of discretion.
Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration. Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. Similarly, the trial court abuses its discretion if it does not follow legal procedure.
Where the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.
Lineberger v. Wyeth , 894 A.2d 141, 145-46 (Pa.Super. 2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).It is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion if...charged with the duty imposed on the court below; it is necessary to go further and show an abuse of the discretionary power. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Robert O. Baldi, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those questions. ( See Supplemental Trial Court Opinion, filed June 16, 2017, at unnumbered pages 5-10) (finding: (1) Appellant failed to deny FNMA's allegations of default with any specificity; there is no evidence that Appellant has made requisite payments, and record contains no evidence contravening amounts FNMA alleged are due and owing; instead of factually responding to FNMA's averments of default, Appellant responded with legal conclusion that "proper" owner of note has not declared default; Appellant's response does not answer FNMA's averment that mortgage is in default; Appellant is charged with having sufficient knowledge upon which to lodge specific denial with respect to FNMA's averments of default; Appellant's general denial to default is insufficient to raise genuine issue of fact; Appellant produced no evidence by way of affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, or other substantiating documentation in support of her allegations; evidence presented shows no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment in favor of FNMA was proper as matter of law; (2) FNMA produced evidence that it was holder of mortgage; specifically, FNMA alleged in its complaint that mortgage was assigned by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. to FNMA by assignment of mortgage recorded under instrument 2013091760; FNMA produced copies of original recorded mortgage and its recorded assignment to FNMA, as well as note; Appellant's argument that FNMA cannot establish ownership of note lacks merit; note produced by FNMA in this case identifies Appellant's deceased husband as "borrower" and Buyers Home Mortgage, Inc. as "lender"; note was endorsed by Buyers Home Mortgage without recourse to order of SunTrust; SunTrust, in turn, endorsed note without recourse in blank; note endorsed in blank becomes payable to "bearer" and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially endorsed; as negotiable instrument, note entitles holder of note to enforcement of obligation; based on FNMA's ownership of mortgage and possession of note, court properly concluded that FNMA had standing as real party in interest to bring underlying foreclosure action; (3-4) Appellant's remaining matters are repetitious of her previously worded arguments that FNMA lacks standing and that court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of FNMA). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's supplemental opinion.
Appellant's specific claim raised in her third question presented, regarding lack of notice, is waived for failure to preserve that claim in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. See Lineberger , supra (explaining general rule that issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived on appeal). To the extent Appellant advances additional arguments on appeal that the trial court did not discuss in its supplemental opinion, those issues are waived for vagueness in Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement. See id. (stating concise statement which is too vague to allow court to identify issues raised on appeal is functional equivalent of no concise statement at all).
On July 13, 2017, this Court granted "Appellant's Emergency Motion to Stay Sheriff Sale," and temporarily stayed the sheriff's sale scheduled for July 14, 2017, pending the outcome of this appeal. Due to our disposition, we now lift the stay. --------
Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/8/2017
Image materials not available for display.