From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mae v. Kratz

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oct 21, 2016
No. 1534 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2016)

Opinion

J-A19037-16 No. 1534 EDA 2014

10-21-2016

FANNIE MAE, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. JEFFREY F. KRATZ AND MARGUERITE F. KRATZ APPEAL OF: JEFFREY F. KRATZ


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2011-25916 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OTT, and FITZGERALD, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.:

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

Appellant, Jeffrey F. Kratz, appeals from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Fannie Mae, Federal National Mortgage Association, in this mortgage foreclosure action. Appellant contends (1) that because the United States government "bailed out" the banks, he owes no money under the mortgage; (2) every assignment of Appellant's mortgage was defective and thus the mortgage was never properly transferred from the original holder; and (3) thus, Appellee lacks standing to bring suit because it is not the owner and holder of the mortgage. We affirm.

We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the trial court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 6/23/15, at 2-7. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Appellant raises the following issue: "Have the pleadings and discovery of [Appellant] shown that there is a genuine issue as to material facts and that [Appellee] is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2." Appellant's Brief at 7.

We note this appeal was stayed when Appellant filed for bankruptcy. The stay was lifted on April 18, 2016. Order, 4/18/16.

In support of his issue, Appellant raises three arguments. First, because the United States government "bailed out" Wall Street and the banks, Appellee has been paid-in-full and Appellant owes no money. In support of this argument, Appellants generally refers this Court to a fifty-six page expert report and cites no law. Second, Appellant states that all the assignments were invalid because the assignments were not executed by the "appropriate officers of the bank involved in the actual assignments of the note and mortgage." Appellant's Brief at 18. Appellant cites no law for this proposition, either. Lastly, citing a single trial court opinion, Appellant opines that because the assignments were invalid, Appellee lacks standing to bring suit. Id. at 16. We affirm.

We adhere to the following standard of review:

We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 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. Our scope of review of a trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court's order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.
NASDAQ OMX PHLX , Inc. v. PennMont Secs., 52 A.3d 296, 303 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

When a party cites no legal authority in support of its claim, the claim is waived. Commonwealth v. Natividad , 938 A.2d 310, 340 (Pa. 2007); Commonwealth v. Jette , 947 A.2d 202, 205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (same). Instantly, Appellant cites no law for the propositions that because Appellee was "bailed out" by the federal government, Appellant owes nothing for the mortgage and the assignments were invalid. Because Appellant cites no legal authority, he has waived his claims. See Natividad , 938 A.2d at 340; Jette , 947 A.2d at 205. Appellant's third argument derives from his second argument. Because Appellant has waived his claim that the assignments were invalid, Appellant cannot establish his derivative claim that Appellee lacks standing. Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/21/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Mae v. Kratz

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oct 21, 2016
No. 1534 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2016)
Case details for

Mae v. Kratz

Case Details

Full title:FANNIE MAE, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. JEFFREY F. KRATZ AND…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Oct 21, 2016

Citations

No. 1534 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2016)