Opinion
J-A27038-16 No. 2786 EDA 2015 No. 2787 EDA 2015
01-25-2017
VIRGINIA HUMPHREYS AND BRIAN HUMPHREYS v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. APPEAL OF: BRIAN HUMPHREYS WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. v. VIRGINIA L. HUMPHREYS AND BRIAN C. HUMPHREYS APPEAL OF: BRIAN HUMPHREYS
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered August 13, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2014-12252 Appeal from the Order Entered August 13, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2011-3134 BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Pro se Appellant, Brian Humphreys, appeals from two separate orders entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas respectively granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Wells Fargo Bank, in a foreclosure action and dismissing Appellant's second amended complaint against Appellee in a quiet title action. Appellant contends, in this consolidated appeal, that Appellee was not the proper "note holder" in connection with the mortgage at issue and therefore did not have the authority to pursue a foreclosure action against him. We affirm.
Initially, Appellant and his Mother, Virginia L. Humphreys (collectively the "parties") were jointly involved in both actions in this consolidated case. After Virginia Humphreys passed away in March 2015, Appellant continued to pursue this appeal individually.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the trial court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/31/16, at 1-4. On April 6, 2011, Appellee filed a mortgage foreclosure action ("foreclosure action") against the parties because Appellee had not received the required monthly payments after November 2010. On August 25, 2011, the parties filed an answer consisting of general denials and three paragraphs of affirmative defenses. Thereafter, on October 17, 2011, the parties filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied on December 7, 2011. Appellee filed its own motion for summary judgment on April 27, 2015, which the trial court granted via an order and opinion dated August 13, 2015 ("Foreclosure Opinion"). Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on September 10, 2015 and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on October 1, 2015. The trial court filed a responsive Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement, referencing the court's Foreclosure Opinion.
We note that Appellee is the successor in interest, by way of merger, to Wachovia Bank.
Meanwhile, on December 30, 2014, the parties initiated a quiet title action against Appellee regarding the same property that is the subject of the foreclosure action. Appellee filed timely preliminary objections, and the parties filed an amended complaint on February 9, 2015. Appellee filed additional preliminary objections on March 2, 2015, and the parties filed a second amended complaint. On April 8, 2015, Appellee filed preliminary objections in response to the second amended complaint. After the trial court conducted oral argument on May 26, 2015, the court ultimately sustained Appellee's objections and dismissed the parties' second amended complaint by order and opinion, also dated August 13, 2015 ("Quiet Title Opinion"). Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on September 10, 2015 and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on October 1, 2015. The trial court filed a responsive Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement, referencing the court's Quiet Title Opinion.
On November 9, 2015, this Court consolidated the two above-referenced appeals. Appellant filed a single brief incorporating his issues regarding both cases.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
On its own accord, should the Court have claimed that the argument put forth in PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Powell , 100 A.3d 611, 619 (Pa. Super. 2014), was "indistinguishable" from that presented in the instant case?
The Appellant's 2011 Answer to Wells Fargo's Foreclosure Complaint contained general denials; most of which were argued in great detail in later pleadings. Did the Court unjustly presume that [Appellant's] Answer was dishonest?Appellant's Brief at 3-4.
Appellant initially raised seventeen issues. Appellant's Brief at 2-9. However, in his reply brief, Appellant indicated his intention to abandon all but two issues for purposes of appellate review. Appellant's Reply Brief at 1. As set forth by Appellant, his "core issues" are encapsulated within his two remaining issues. Id. We note that on December 14, 2015, Appellee filed a motion to quash Appellant's appeal based upon the many "material" defects within Appellant's Brief. We note that Appellant's pro se arguments are difficult to discern. We remind Appellant that his pro se status does not relieve him of his obligation to raise and develop his appellate claims properly and this court will not act as appellate counsel. Smathers v. Smathers , 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996). However, Appellant's brief does provide argument and citation to legal authority regarding his two remaining issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Therefore, we decline to quash his appeal. --------
The crux of Appellant's issues is his contention that Appellee was not legally permitted to pursue a foreclosure action against him because Appellee was not the legal "note holder" in connection with the mortgage at issue. No relief is due.
Regarding summary judgment, our review is guided by the following principles:
The standards which govern summary judgment are well settled. When a party seeks summary judgment, a court shall enter judgment whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense that could be established by additional discovery. A motion for summary judgment is based on an evidentiary record that entitles the moving party to a
judgment as a matter of law. In considering the merits of a motion for summary judgment, a court views 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. Finally, the court may grant summary judgment only when the right to such a judgment is clear and free from doubt. An appellate court may reverse the granting of a motion for summary judgment if there has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion. . . .Varner-Mort v. Kapfhammer , 109 A.3d 244, 246-47 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
This Court's standard of review of orders sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer is well-settled:
In determining whether the trial court properly sustained preliminary objections, the appellate court must examine the averments in the complaint, together with the documents and exhibits attached thereto, in order to evaluate the sufficiency of the facts averred. The impetus of our inquiry is to determine the legal sufficiency of the complaint and whether the pleading would permit recovery if ultimately proven. This Court will reverse the trial court's decision regarding preliminary objections only where there has been an error of law or abuse of discretion. When sustaining the trial court's ruling will result in the denial of claim or dismissal of suit, preliminary objections will be sustained only where the case is free and clear of doubt.Donaldson v. Davidson Bros., Inc., 144 A.3d 93, 100 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). The trial court's decision to grant or deny a demurrer involves a matter of law; therefore, "our scope of review is plenary, allowing us to review the whole record." Mistick , Inc. v. Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co., 806 A.2d 39, 42 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).
Integral to this case is the legal precept that "[o]wnership of [a] Note is irrelevant to the determination of whether [an entity] is entitled to enforce the Note." PHH Mort. Corp. v. Powell , 100 A.3d 611, 621 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (holding that holder of promissory note had standing to enforce the attendant mortgage regardless of petitioner's claim that another entity, Fannie Mae, owned the note).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Anthony S. Beltrami, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court's opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. See Foreclosure Opinion at 6-14; Quiet Title Opinion at 3-6; (finding that Appellee had proper standing to pursue a foreclosure action against Appellant and, accordingly, Appellant's quiet title action was legally insufficient). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinions.
Orders affirmed. Motion to quash denied. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/25/2017
Image materials not available for display.