Citimortgage v. Novotny, R. ( 2015 )

J-S68035-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CITIMORTGAGE, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ROBERT J. NOVOTNY AND MICHELE P.
AMODEI
Appellants No. 3314 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order October 27, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2012-28246
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE, J., and MUNDY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2015
Appellants, Robert J. Novotny and Michele P. Amodei, appeal from the
trial court’s October 27, 2014 order denying their petition to set aside the
sheriff’s sale of their residence. After careful review, we affirm.
We summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as gleaned
from the certified record as follows. On January 26, 2009, Appellants
executed a promissory note on the property at 2409 Alan Road, Norristown,
Pennsylvania in the amount of $267,883.00 and delivered it to Infinity Home
Mortgage Company, Inc. (Infinity). On that same day, Appellants executed
and delivered a mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
as nominee for Infinity. Later, this mortgage was assigned to Appellee,
Citimortgage, Inc. (Citimortgage), and recorded on July 31, 2012.
J-S68035-15
On November 5, 2012, Citimortgage filed a complaint in mortgage
foreclosure, averring that Appellants were in default on the mortgage by
failing to make payments since April 1, 2012. The complaint calculated the
total amount outstanding was $267,859.38, including the principal, interest,
and other fees. Appellants did not respond to the complaint, and the trial
court entered default judgment in favor of Citimortgage and against
Appellants in rem for $276,458.75 on January 23, 2013.
On September 25, 2013, in execution of the default judgment, the
property was sold at a sheriff’s sale to Citimortgage. On October 17, 2013,
Appellants filed a motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale, which is the subject
of this appeal. Thereafter, on November 29, 2013, Citimortgage recorded
the sheriff’s deed.
On October 27, 2014, the trial court entered an order denying
Appellants’ motion to set aside. On November 20, 2014, Appellants filed a
timely notice of appeal.1
On appeal, Appellants present the following two issues for our review.
(1) Did the trial court commit an error of law in its
denial of the [m]otion to [s]et [a]side
[s]heriff’s [f]oreclosure [s]ale when there
existed a record discrepancy rendering the
claimed mortgage assignment invalid, and
there existed no transfer of the note through
the chain of loan title?
____________________________________________
1
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.
-2-
J-S68035-15
(2) Did the trial court commit an error of law when
it refused a requested evidentiary hearing
regarding the above-discussed contested issue
of “want of authority” and additionally the
contested issue as to whether judgment debtor
was advised by foreclosing lender that the
[s]heriff’s [s]ale was to be on “hold[?]”
Appellants’ Brief at 8.
“The purpose of a sheriff’s sale in mortgage foreclosure proceedings is
to realize out of the land, the debt, interest, and costs which are due, or
have accrued to, the judgment creditor.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Lark,
73 A.3d 1265, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3132, which governs setting
aside a sheriff’s sale, provides as follows.
Rule 3132. Setting Aside Sale
Upon petition of any party in interest before delivery
of the personal property or of the sheriff’s deed to
real property, the court may, upon proper cause
shown, set aside the sale and order a resale or enter
any other order which may be just and proper under
the circumstances.
Pa.R.C.P. 3132. As such, a petition to set aside a sheriff’s sale is directed to
the trial court’s equitable powers. Nationstar, supra. The petitioner has
the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the
circumstances warrant relief. M & T Mortg. Corp. v. Keesler, 826 A.2d
877, 879 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 856 A.2d 835 (Pa. 2004). This
Court reviews a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Nationstar,
-3-
J-S68035-15
supra. “An abuse of discretion occurs where, for example, the trial court
misapplies the law.” Id. (citation omitted).
In their first issue on appeal, Appellants argue that Citimortgage did
not have the authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Appellants’ Brief
at 13-14. Specifically, Appellants contend that as of the date of the sheriff’s
sale, the assignment of the mortgage to Citimortgage had not been
recorded, and Infinity had not transferred the note to Citimortgage. Id. at
14. Our review of the record reveals that Appellants’ argument is meritless.
“Where an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of
the assignor and assumes all of his rights.” Smith v. Cumberland Group,
Ltd., 687 A.2d 1167, 1172 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, “the assignee is usually the real party in interest and action on
the assignment must be prosecuted in his name.” Wilcox v. Regester, 207
A.2d 817, 820 (Pa. 1965). Herein, Citimortgage attached to its complaint
the assignment of the mortgage, which was executed on July 23, 2012 and
recorded in the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds office on July 31,
2012. Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure, 11/5/12, at Exhibit D,
Assignment of Mortgage, 7/23/12. The assignment provided that Infinity
assigned to Citimortgage the mortgage, “[t]ogether with all [r]ights,
[r]emedies and [i]ncidents thereunto belonging. All its [r]ight, [t]itle,
[i]nterest, [p]roperty, [c]laim and [d]emand, in and to the same[.]” Id.Therefore, Citimortgage was the real party in interest and had the same
-4-
J-S68035-15
right to enforce the mortgage and note by foreclosing on the property when
Appellants defaulted. See Wilcox, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the sheriff’s sale on this
ground. See Nationstar, supra.In their second issue on appeal, Appellants contend that the trial court
erred by deciding their motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale without
scheduling an evidentiary hearing, which Appellants requested. Appellants’
Brief at 15. Appellants assert that Novotny “would have [] testified that
[Appellants] were advised by [Citimortgage’s] representative that the
[s]heriff’s [s]ale was on ‘hold’ pending loan modification analysis by
[Citimortgage].” Id. This argument is meritless.
“An agreement to forbear from foreclosure, between mortgagor and
mortgagee, has been held to represent an interest in land such that the
agreement is subject to the Statute of Frauds and must be in writing.”
Strausser v. PRAMCO, III, 944 A.2d 761, 765 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation
omitted). Herein, the trial court explained that “[Appellants] neither
attached to, nor alleged in [their] [m]otion, any written documentation to
support [their] claim of forbearance. [Appellants] also did not assert a
written for[]bearance [agreement] in [their] brief.” Trial Court Opinion,
3/31/15, at 4-5. Similarly, Appellants do not allege that a written
agreement to forbear exists in their appellate brief. Instead, they assert
that their testimony would have reflected an oral statement that
-5-
J-S68035-15
Citimortgage put the foreclosure proceedings on hold. Appellants’ Brief at
15. Oral statements, however, cannot satisfy the statute of frauds. See
Strausser, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Appellants’ motion on the basis that Citimortgage orally agreed to
put the forbearance on hold. See Nationstar, supra.Further, we note that in their request for an evidentiary hearing,
Appellants summarized the evidence they would present as follows.
“[Appellants] respectfully request[] an evidentiary hearing upon which
[Appellants] can examine [Citimortgage’s] purported proof that it was the
pre-judgment record mortgage assignee and note transferee[], as well as
[Citimortgage’s] contest [sic] that [Appellants were], in fact, not advised
that the [s]ale was on hold.” Appellants’ Reply in Support of Appellants’
Motion to Set-Aside Citimortgage’s Sheriff’s Foreclosure Sale, 11/25/13, at
1. We agree with the trial court that the lack of an evidentiary hearing did
not prejudice Appellants, as a review of Appellants’ pleadings and briefing
revealed Appellants did not have any evidence to contradict the assignment
or support a written forbearance agreement. Trial Court Opinion, 3/31/15,
at 5. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Appellants an evidentiary hearing. See Nationstar, supra.Based on the foregoing, we conclude both of Appellants’ issues lack
merit and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’
-6-
J-S68035-15
motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s October 27, 2014 order.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/1/2015
-7-