The Bank of New York v. Mazza, M. ( 2018 )

J-S41017-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MARK AND LISA MAZZA, :
:
Appellant : No. 3265 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order September 7, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Civil Division at No(s): 12-05926
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS : PENNSYLVANIA
TRUSTEE FOR THE :
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE :
CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN :
TRUST 2006-0A10 MORTGAGE PASS- :
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES :
2006-0A10 :
: No. 99 EDA 2018
:
v. :
:
:
MARK D. MAZZA AND LISA A. MAZZA :
:
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order Entered November 28, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2012-05926
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED AUGUST 13, 2018
Appellants, Mark D. Mazza and Lisa A. Mazza, appeal pro se from the
orders entered September 7, 2017 and November 28, 2017. We affirm the
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41017-18
September 7, 2017 order and dismiss the appeal of the November 28, 2017
order.
The relevant factual background and procedural history of this case are
as follows.
On June 12, 2012, [] The Bank of New York Mellon [(“BNY
Mellon”)] filed a [c]omplaint in mortgage foreclosure against
Appellants . . . after they failed to make monthly mortgage
payments starting in June 2010. . . . On January 23, 2015,
following a one-day bench trial on January 12, 2015, the trial court
issued a verdict in favor of [BNY Mellon]. . . . The trial court
entered judgment on August 12, 2015[.]
Bank of New York Mellon v. Mazza, 158 A.3d 172, 2016 WL 5888626, *1
(Pa. Super. 2016) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 167 A.3d 701
(Pa. 2017) (paragraph breaks omitted). This Court affirmed that judgment
and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal. See generally id.
On June 15, 2017, BNY Mellon bought the subject property at a sheriff’s
sale. Appellants filed a petition to set aside the sheriff’s sale; however, they
later withdrew that petition. On August 8, 2017, the Chester County Sheriff
delivered the deed to BNY Mellon. On August 11, 2017, that deed was
recorded. Approximately five hours later, Appellants filed a second petition to
set aside the sheriff’s sale. On September 7, 2017, the trial court denied that
petition and Appellants timely appealed that order.
On October 11, 2017, the trial court ordered Appellants to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal (“concise statement”) within 21
days. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellants failed to file a concise statement.
-2-
J-S41017-18
On November 22, 2017, Appellants filed a petition for leave to file a concise
statement nunc pro tunc. On November 28, 2017, the trial court denied that
petition without a hearing. Appellants timely appealed that order and this
Court consolidated the two appeals.
Appellants present five issues for our review:
1. Was due process denied to Appellants due to [the trial court’s]
failure to properly serve [A]ppellants the [concise statement]
order?
2. Did the [trial] court commit error of law and/or abuse of
discretion by denying [A]ppellants[’] motion for leave to file
motion for reconsideration and correct a procedural error
regarding lack of service of the [concise statement] order?
3. Did the [trial court] abuse [its] discretion, commit errors of
law[,] and disregard substantial evidence by denying
[A]ppellants[’] petition seeking leave of court to file petition for
additional time or nunc pro tunc relief to file a [] concise
statement when the order requesting same was not sent
and/or delivered to [A]ppellants[?]
4. Did the [trial court] abuse [its] discretion, commit errors of
law[,] and/or disregard substantial evidence in denying
[A]ppellants[’] petition to set aside sheriff sale that occurred
on June 15, 2017 and in requiring [A]ppellants to seek leave of
court before filing further motions?
5. Should this Court vacate the two orders on appeal and remand
to the [trial] court for a fact-finding hearing on the
petition/motion and/or exceptions to set aside sheriff sale that
occurred on June 15, 2017 and/or direct the [trial] court to
grant [A]ppellants an extension/enlargement of time to file the
concise statement . . . ?
Appellants’ Brief at 1-2.1
____________________________________________
1 We have re-numbered the issues for ease of disposition.
-3-
J-S41017-18
In their first three issues, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in
denying their petition to file a concise statement nunc pro tunc. Pennsylvania
Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925 provides that “[i]ssues not included in the
[concise s]tatement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this
paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). This finding of
waiver is mandatory. See Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa.
1998). However, the failure to file a concise statement is excused when there
is a breakdown in the court system and the appellant fails to receive the trial
court’s concise statement order. See Commonwealth v. Parks, 768 A.2d
1168, 1171-1172 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citation omitted). In this case, we refuse
to find Appellants’ issues waived because the trial court had an insufficient
basis to find that Appellants received the concise statement order. As we
decline to find Appellants’ issues related to the September 7, 2017 order
waived, we dismiss the appeal of the November 28, 2017 order as moot.
In their fourth and fifth issues, Appellants argue that the trial court erred
in denying their petition to set aside the sheriff’s sale and that an evidentiary
hearing was necessary. We review a trial court order denying a petition to set
aside a sheriff’s sale for an abuse of discretion. First Union National Bank
v. Estate of Shevlin, 897 A.2d 1241, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 3132 and 3135, a challenge
to a sheriff’s sale must be made prior to the deed being delivered. See
Pa.R.C.P. 3132, 3135(a). “There is an exception to this time bar, however. A
-4-
J-S41017-18
sheriff’s sale may be set aside after delivery of the sheriff’s deed based on
fraud or lack of authority to make the sale.” Mortgage Elec. Registration
Sys., Inc. v. Ralich, 982 A.2d 77, 80 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 992
A.2d 889 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
Appellants incorrectly aver that they filed their petition prior to the date
the sheriff transferred the deed to BNY Mellon. The certified record confirms
that the sheriff delivered the deed, and it was recorded, prior to Appellants
filing their petition to set aside the sheriff’s sale. Therefore, Appellants were
required to prove fraud or lack of authority to make the sale. Hence, the trial
court properly rejected Appellants’ arguments unrelated to fraud or lack of
authority to make the sheriff’s sale.
Appellants set forth two allegations of fraud or lack of authority to make
the sheriff’s sale. First, they argue that the attorney who purchased the
property was unauthorized to proceed with the sale. This argument is
frivolous. A purchaser, by his or her very nature of buying the property, need
not have authority to sell the property. Second, Appellants argue that BNY
Mellon failed to plead in their complaint that it owned the mortgage and,
therefore, BNY Mellon lacked authority to proceed with the sheriff’s sale.
However, the record reflects that BNY Mellon pled that it owned the mortgage.
Complaint, 6/12/12, at ¶ 5. Accordingly, the allegations of fraud and lack of
authority to make the sale were belied by the record; thus, the trial court
-5-
J-S41017-18
properly denied Appellants’ petition to set aside the sheriff’s sale without an
evidentiary hearing.
Appellants’ fourth issue also challenges the trial court’s issuance of
sanctions under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 233.1. Appellants,
however, fail to make any argument in their brief as to how the trial court
erred in imposing Rule 233.1 sanctions. Hence, Appellants’ waived any
challenge to the Rule 233.1 sanctions. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
Order affirmed in appeal 3265 EDA 2017. Appeal 99 EDA 2018
dismissed as moot.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/13/18
-6-