Everbank v. McKnight, F. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J-S54018-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    EVERBANK F/K/A EVERHOME MORTGAGE                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    F/K/A ALLIANCE MORTGAGE COMPANY                         PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    FRANCES A. MCKNIGHT
    Appellant                  No. 3131 EDA 2014
    Appeal from the Order Entered October 6, 2014
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Civil Division at No(s): 1209-00491
    BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
    MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.                          FILED OCTOBER 14, 2015
    Appellant, Frances A. McKnight, appeals from the order entered by the
    Honorable Nina N. Wright Padilla, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
    County, which denied McKnight’s Motion to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale of her
    foreclosed property. We affirm.
    Appellee, EverBank,1 filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure on
    September 5, 2012.         On June 19, 2013, the trial court entered default
    judgment against McKnight due to her failure to file an answer to the
    complaint.     On February 24, 2014, McKnight filed a Petition to Postpone
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    On August 26, 1994, McKnight mortgaged the subject property to
    Columbia National, Inc. (“Columbia”) and concurrently executed a
    promissory note in favor of Columbia. Columbia subsequently assigned the
    mortgage to Alliance Mortgage Co., which later became EverBank, f/k/a
    EverHome Mortgage Company due to an entity name change.
    J-S54018-15
    Sheriff’s Sale. The trial court denied McKnight’s petition after she failed to
    appear at the hearing. McKnight filed a second Petition to Postpone Sheriff’s
    Sale on March 27, 2014. The trial court denied McKnight’s second petition.
    On April 1, 2014, McKnight’s property was sold at a sheriff’s sale.
    McKnight filed a Motion to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale, the subject of the instant
    appeal, on August 14, 2014. McKnight admitted that she filed this motion
    after the sheriff’s deed to the property was recorded.        See McKnight’s
    Motion to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale, 8/14/14, at ¶ 5. On September 29, 2014,
    the trial court ruled that McKnight’s Motion to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale was
    untimely pursuant to Rule 3132 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
    In addition, the trial court determined that McKnight’s allegations of fraud
    and lack of authority were not pled with particularity. Accordingly, the trial
    court dismissed McKnight’s motion. This timely appeal followed.
    On appeal, McKnight argues that the trial court erred in denying her
    Motion to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale on the grounds of fraud and lack of
    authority. We review the denial of a motion to set aside a sheriff’s sale for
    an abuse of discretion. See Irwin Union National Bank and Trust Co. v.
    Famous, 
    4 A.3d 1099
    , 1102 (Pa. Super. 2010). “[T]he relevant inquiry is
    whether proper cause has been shown to set aside the sheriff’s sale.” 
    Id.
    (citation omitted).   The burden of establishing proper cause lies with the
    petitioner. See 
    id.
     “Sheriff’s sales have been set aside where the validity of
    the sale proceedings is challenged, a deficiency pertaining to the notice of
    -2-
    J-S54018-15
    the sale exists, or where misconduct occurs in the bidding process.”       
    Id.
    (citation omitted).
    “[A] petition to set aside a sheriff’s sale may only be granted when the
    petition is filed before the sheriff’s delivery of the deed.”       Mortgage
    Electro. Registration Systems, Inc. v. Ralich, 
    982 A.2d 77
    , 79 (Pa.
    Super. 2009) (citation omitted). There is, however, an exception to the time
    bar. See 
    id.
     Under this exception, a trial court may set aside a sheriff’s
    sale after delivery of the sheriff’s deed based upon fraud or lack of authority
    to make the sale. See 
    id.
     Averments of fraud or mistake must be averred
    with particularity. See Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b).
    In the instant case, McKnight failed to file her Motion to Set Aside
    Sheriff’s Sale before the sheriff’s deed was recorded. Therefore, McKnight’s
    motion was untimely.    Thus, in order to overcome the time bar, McKnight
    must have pled her allegations of fraud and lack of authority with
    particularity.
    In McKnight’s motion, she alleged that EverBank committed fraud or
    did not have the authority to make the sale; however, she failed to plead
    either averment with particularity. Instead, McKnight merely presented bare
    accusations that EverBank did not have a pre-judgment negotiated note or
    mortgage record assigned through the chain of loan title.         In addition,
    McKnight alleged that fraud took place in the transaction of the sheriff’s sale
    because the proceeds of her late husband’s mortgage life insurance should
    -3-
    J-S54018-15
    have paid off the subject mortgage debt. McKnight failed to provide a single
    piece of evidence to support this assertion. See Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h-i).
    Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly denied McKnight’s
    untimely motion to set aside and did not abuse its discretion. In order to
    overcome the time bar, McKnight was required to plead fraud or lack of
    authority with particularity, not merely allege fraud or lack of authority
    generally, and we agree with the trial court that McKnight failed to do so. 2
    In addition, it is clear from the record that EverBank was the pre-judgment
    holder of the subject promissory note and mortgage.3 Thus, EverBank acted
    with authority to commence the sale of the property. Because McKnight’s
    Motion to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale was not timely filed, and its untimeliness
    was not excused by an exception, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.
    Order affirmed.
    2
    McKnight raised several other issues on appeal unrelated to her allegations
    of fraud and lack of authority. We need not discuss these issues, however,
    because McKnight’s Motion to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale was untimely and no
    exception to the time bar applies. Thus, these issues are moot.
    3
    According to EverBank’s Complaint, the promissory note and mortgage
    were assigned to Alliance Mortgage Company, now EverBank, and recorded
    with the Philadelphia Recorder of Deeds on February 28, 2003.           See
    EverBank Complaint, filed September 5, 2012, at ¶ 1(d). Because McKnight
    failed to file an answer to EverBank’s Complaint, these averments constitute
    admissions. See P.R.C.P. 1029(b).
    -4-
    J-S54018-15
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 10/14/2015
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3131 EDA 2014

Filed Date: 10/14/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024