Ditech Financial v. Michaels, J. ( 2019 )

J-S03016-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC F/K/A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN P. MICHAELS AND LAURIE J. :
MICHAELS : No. 1375 EDA 2018
:
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order March 13, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s):
8093 CIVIL 2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2019
Appellants, John P. Michaels and Laurie J. Michaels, appeal from the
order entered on March 13, 2018, granting a motion for summary judgment
filed by Ditech Financial, LLC, f.k.a., Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Ditech”).
Upon review, we vacate the order and remand for additional proceedings.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. On October 27, 2015, Ditech instituted a mortgage foreclosure action
against Appellants regarding a residential property in Monroe, County,
Pennsylvania. After conciliation efforts failed, Appellants filed an answer and
new matter to the complaint on January 20, 2017. Ditech replied to
Appellants’ new matter on February 1, 2017. On February 6, 2018, Ditech
filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellants filed a response on March
J-S03016-19
9, 2018. On March 13, 2018, the trial court entered an order granting Ditech’s
motion for summary judgment and entering judgment in Ditech’s favor in the
amount of $251,184.30, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.
Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on April 12, 2018. The trial
court entered an order on May 21, 2018, stating that it did not receive a copy
of the notice of appeal. In that order, the trial court directed Appellants to file
a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal by June 11, 2018.
Appellants complied timely. On June 21, 2018, the trial court issued an
opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), which states in pertinent part:
After review of the issues raised by [Appellants], [the trial court]
believe[s its] order was entered in error. [The trial court]
reviewed [Appellants’] response to the [m]otion for [s]ummary
[j]udgment and their brief in support. [The trial court did not]
believe [it] was aware that [Appellants] filed these documents at
the time [it] made [its] decision, perhaps because of a delay in
docketing and scanning. [The trial court] believe[d its] order was
in response to what [it] thought was an uncontested motion.
The complaint in this case states that John Michaels obtained a
loan from Ditech’s predecessor [i]n November, 2005 in the
amount of $198,280.00. Mr. Michaels signed the note but Mrs.
Michaels did not. In addition, both [Appellants] secured the loan
by signing a mortgage on their property. John Michaels then
signed a modification of the note and mortgage on July 22, 2014,
increasing the principal balance to $200,472.00 and modifying the
interest rate of the note. Laurie Michaels did not sign this loan
modification agreement.
[Appellants] defended the motion for summary judgment on the
grounds that Laurie Michaels did not agree to this modification of
the mortgage and should not be bound by it. [The trial court
concluded that] had [it] considered this defense, [it] would have
denied the motion for summary judgment.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/21/2018, at 1-2 (record citation omitted).
-2-
J-S03016-19
Our standard of review is well-settled:
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. 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.
Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 37 A.3d 1175, 1179 (Pa. 2012) (citation
omitted).
Here, by its own admission, the trial court inadvertently erred by failing
to consider Appellants’ defense to the motion for summary judgment. As
such, there were issues of material fact as to Ditech’s right to judgment when
the trial court entered its order granting summary judgment. Accordingly, we
vacate the order and remand for additional proceedings.
Order vacated. Case remanded for additional proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/19
-3-