JP Morgan v. Lamanna, L. ( 2015 )

J-S29005-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J P MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
LOUIS J. LAMANNA A/K/A LOUIS JOHN
LAMANNA (REAL OWNER AND
MORTGAGOR) AND MELISSA ANNE
LAMANNA (REAL OWNER) AND UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
APPEAL OF: LOUIS J. LAMANNA AND
No. 819 WDA 2014
MELISSA ANNE LAMANNA
Appeal from the Order Entered April 17, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): MG 11-000682
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 08, 2015
Appellants, Louis J. Lamanna and Melissa Anne Lamanna, appeal from
the order that granted summary judgment to Appellee, J P Morgan Chase
(“Morgan”), NA, on its action in foreclosure. The Lamannas argue that the
status of Morgan as owner of the mortgage is an unresolved question of
material fact. After careful review, we conclude that this question is not
material to the legal basis of the trial court’s decision, and therefore affirm.1
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Morgan has also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. In this
motion, Morgan asserts that the property has been sold at sheriff’s sale, with
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S29005-15
Other than the current ownership of the mortgage, the essential facts
of this appeal are not in dispute. Louis Lamanna borrowed $1.5 million from
Washington Mutual Bank, FA in 2007 to purchase a residential property
located at 1037 Hulton Road, Oakmont, PA (“the property”), and executed a
mortgage in favor of Washington Mutual securing the property as collateral
for the loan. Shortly thereafter, Louis Lamanna conveyed the property to
himself and his wife, Melissa Anne Lamanna.
Several years later, Louis Lamanna stopped making required payments
on the loan, and in 2011, Morgan filed the instant action in foreclosure.
Morgan subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial
court granted. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, the Lamannas argue that Morgan is not the assignee of the
mortgage, and that presumably, Morgan therefore does not have standing to
prosecute this foreclosure action. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11. This Court
has held that, under the UCC, a debtor does not have standing to challenge
defects in the chain of possession of a valid note. See JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1266 (Pa. Super. 2013). This is due
to the fact that such a debtor’s liability under the note is completely
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Morgan being the only bidder. As such, Morgan contends, this Court can
provide no remedy to the Lamannas. We decline to reach this issue, as we
conclude that no relief is due on the Lamannas’ sole issue on appeal.
-2-
J-S29005-15
discharged by paying the holder, even if another party is ultimately
determined to be the real party in interest. See id., at 1265.
Here, the Lamannas do not challenge the validity of the underlying
note or mortgage. The Lamannas appear only to argue that Morgan has not
established that it is the real party in interest. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11.
Under Murray, the Lamannas do not have standing to raise this challenge.
We therefore conclude that the Lamannas’ sole issue on appeal merits no
relief.
Order affirmed. Motion to dismiss denied as moot. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/8/2015
-3-