Christiana Trust v. Fielding, C. ( 2023 )

J-S36002-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
CHRISTIANA TRUST, A DIVISION OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
WILMINGTON SAVINGS, : PENNSYLVANIA
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND :
SOCIETY FSB, AND MTGLQ :
INVESTORS LP :
:
v. :
:
CALVIN FIELDING, SR. :
: No. 3118 EDA 2022
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): 170402857
BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023
Calvin Fielding, Sr., appeals pro se from the order denying his petition
to set aside the sheriff’s sale of his foreclosed-upon property. We affirm.
We glean the following case history from the trial court opinion. In
2006, Mr. Fielding took out a $96,000 loan secured by real property situated
in Philadelphia. Although Mr. Fielding promptly signed a notice of recission on
the day he received the funds, he did not follow through with the recission by
returning the money. The mortgage was assigned in 2007. Appellant stopped
making payments in 2009, notice of intent to foreclose was sent in 2013, and
the mortgage was reassigned to Christiana Trust, which initiated foreclosure
proceedings in 2017. MTGLQ Investors, LP, became the plaintiff in the action
and obtained a verdict and in rem judgment. Mr. Fielding filed no post-trial
J-S36002-23
motions, which resulted in his subsequent appeal being dismissed for failure
to preserve any claims. MTGLQ initiated execution proceedings on its
judgment, which were delayed by Mr. Fielding’s opposition and the COVID-19
pandemic.
A sheriff’s sale was eventually scheduled for October 4, 2022. Mr.
Fielding filed an eleventh-hour emergency petition to stay it. The trial court
held a hearing at which Mr. Fielding sought to relitigate the foreclosure action,
reasserting the same defenses that had been rejected at trial. Finding that
Mr. Fielding had “zero credible basis for his requested relief,” the trial court
denied the petition. Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/23, at 5. The property was sold
at auction the same day.
On October 17, 2022, Mr. Fielding filed a motion to set aside the sheriff’s
sale, reiterating the same previously-rejected arguments about the validity of
the foreclosure judgment. The trial court denied the motion by order of
November 10, 2022. This timely appeal followed, and both Mr. Fielding and
the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Mr. Fielding presents the
following questions for our review, which we have re-ordered for ease of
disposition:
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
aside the sale, giving no basis for the denial and dismissal?
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to
proceed because a loan modification was offered and pending?
-2-
J-S36002-23
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to
proceed because it was a breach of contract?
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to
proceed because the plaintiff admitted they never sent a correct
notice of intent to foreclose?
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set
aside the sale, because the plaintiff lacked standing?
6. Whether the trial court erred in failing to properly attach an
opinion?
Mr. Fielding’s brief at 2-3 (cleaned up).
The following principles govern our review:
We will not reverse a trial court’s decision regarding whether to
set aside a sheriff’s sale absent a clear abuse of discretion. An
abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in
reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the
judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the judgment
is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by
the evidence of record, discretion is abused.
A petition to set aside a sheriff’s sale is grounded in equitable
principles. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing
grounds for relief.
LSF8 Master Participation Tr. v. Petrosky, 271 A.3d 1288, 1291
(Pa.Super. 2022).
Upon a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and
the applicable law, we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion on the
part of the trial court as to the issues raised by Mr. Fielding, and we affirm the
order on the basis of the cogent opinion that the Honorable Anne Marie B.
-3-
J-S36002-23
Coyle issued on May 2, 2022.1 Specifically, Judge Coyle properly concluded
that Mr. Fielding was well-aware of the court’s basis for rejecting his
arguments based upon the prior proceedings, and that no statute or court rule
required the preparation of an opinion explaining the denial of Mr. Fielding’s
motion prior to the appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/23, at 6-7. Further,
Judge Coyle acted well within her discretion in determining that Mr. Fielding
presented no evidence to invoke the court’s equitable powers to stay the sale.
Id. at 8-9.
In short, Mr. Fielding had the opportunity to obtain appellate review of
his issues concerning the validity of the mortgage foreclosure action and
judgment in an appeal therefrom. He squandered that opportunity by failing
to preserve the issues such that his appeal was dismissed. The trial court
properly concluded that his collateral attack upon that judgment via the
petition to set aside the sale is untenable. No relief is due.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
1 MTGLQ argues that Mr. Fielding’s arguments are waived because he failed
to properly: (1) preserve them in a post-trial motion or develop them in his
brief, (2) cite pertinent authorities within his brief, or (3) ensure inclusion
within the certified record of that the transcript of the hearing on the motion
denied in the appealed-from order. See Appellee’s brief at 12-13. Instead of
finding waiver, we have considered Mr. Fielding’s arguments to the extent that
his brief and the certified record before us permits and have concluded that
the trial court’s opinion ably disposes of them.
-4-
J-S36002-23
Date: October 11, 2023
-5-
Circulated 09/28/2023 06:48 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRIAL DIVISION
DIVISION —
-- CIVIL
CHRISTIANA TRUST, A A DIVISION
OF WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND APRIL TERM 2017
NO.-
NO.20857
-- -' ,_·-
SOCIETY, FSB, AND
ANDMTGLQ 20857
INVESTORS
INVESTORS LP, 0857
00857
N ,.a
S•7
Plaintiff(s)
-
ra '•
• •
€;C-
"TI7
1
--
ze . •-r
V.
CALVIN FIELDING,
FIELDING, SR.,
SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 3118 EDA 2022 -
7
t '
+di9tL:A
�
r
£
w7
g
·o
rt. � 74
Defendant
Defendant . 0
c;1 .,' _'U)
�
cn
W
0.
OPINION
Appellant,
Appellant, Calvin Fielding,
Fielding, Sr., the Defendant in the above-captioned mortgage foreclosure
action, seeks
civil action, seeks review
review of
of the Order that
that had been
been entered
entered on November
November 10,
10, 2022,
2022, by the
the
Honorable
Honorable Anne Marie B. Coyle,
Coyle, presiding
presiding as Judge of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania,
Court of
Court of Common Pleas,
Pleas, Civil Division, hereinafter
hereinafter referred to
to as
as ""this
this Court," denying
Appellant's Petition
Appellant's Petition to Set Aside the Sheriff's
Sheriffs Sale' for property located at 7153 N. 19th
I9th St.,
Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, PA 19126. Review of the record reveals that Calvin Fielding, Sr. failed to introduce
any evidence that had warranted this Court exercising its equitable powers
any powers to set aside the subject
sale of the property
property located at 7153 N. 19th St.,
St,, Philadelphia, PA 19126 on October 4, 2022 by the
City of
City of Philadelphia Sheriff'ss Department.
Philadelphia Sheriff Department.
OPFLD-Christiana Trust
0PFLD-Christiana Vs Fielding
Trust Vs Fielding
1 1 1 1III
III 1 1 1 1 1 1IHI
111111111
17040285700146
IAppellant in his respective
'Appellant filings has interchangeably
respective filings interchangeably referenced the subject pleading as both a
a Motion to Stay the
Sale and a
a Petition to Set Aside Sheriff Sale.
Sale
1
FACTUAL
FACTUAL AND
AND PROCEDURAL
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
HISTORY
On September
On September 18,
18, 2006
2006 Appellant Calvin Fielding,
Appellant Calvin Fielding, Sr. signed,and
Sr. signed and executed
executed a
apromissory
promissory
note ("Note") secured by
note ("Note") by aamortgage
mortgage ("Mortgage")
("Mortgage") loan in the amount of
of $96,000, to refinance the
real property
real property located at 7153 N.
N, 19th
19h St., Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, PA 19126, hereinafter the
the"Property,"
Property," with
Mortgage
Mortgage Lenders
Lenders Network,
Network, USA.
USA. See Procedural
Procedural and factual
factual history
history recorded
recorded in
in MTGLQ
MTGLO
Investors,
Investors, LP v.». Fielding,
Fielding, Sr.,
Sr,, 2020 WL 8024774, at
at *I1 (Pa.Com.Pl.).
(Pa.Com.PI). On September 18, 2006,
after receiving
receiving the funds, Mr.
Mr. Fielding signed a
Fielding signed aNotice
Notice of Rescission to attempt to rescind the loan
pursuant
pursuant to
to 15
15 USC
USC §$1635
1635 of the
the Federal
Federal Truth in Lending Aet.
in Lending Act. However, Mr.
Mt. Fielding
Fielding failed
failed to
tender
tender the
the received funds to
received funds to Mortgage
Mortgage Lenders
Lenders Network,
Network, USA,
USA, and
and to
to take
take required
required termination
termination
steps to
steps terminate the Note and Mortgage.
to terminate Mortgage. Id. Instead, he misappropriated the received funds to
pay off several
pay off several other
other outstanding
outstanding debts
debts and kept the
and kept the excess
excess cash.
cash. Id. As
As a
a result,
result, Mortgage Lenders
Mortgage Lenders
Network,
Network, USA,
USA, duly
duly recorded the Mortgage with the Philadelphia County Recorder of Deeds
began servicing
Office and began servicing the
the Note
Note and
and the Mortgage.
Mortgage. Id.
Id
On or before February
February 2,
2, 2007, Bank of America N.A., was assigned possession and
servicer of
servicer of the
the original
original loan.
loan. Id. On or
Id On or about
about September
September 28, 2012, Bank
28, 2012, of America,
Bank of America, determined
determined
that
that they
they had
had lost the original
original Note
Note and executed an Affidavit of
an Affidavit of Lost Note to
to affirm
affirm that
that they
they had
had
not transferred the Note and had remained its rightful possessor. Id. at
at 3.
Appellant
Appellant stopped
stopped making
making payments on the
payments on Mortgage Loan
the Mortgage and Note
Loan and on May
Note on 1, 2009.
May 1, 2009.
Bank
Bank of America
America informed Appellant of the default due to his
informed Appellant his non-payment
non-payment on August
August 12, 2009.
2009.
Id. On April
Id On April 12, 2013, Bank of America,
12,2013, America, also informed Mr. Fielding of their intent to foreclose via
certified mail that had been sent to the Property.
Property. Pending the commencement of foreclosure
litigation, the Note
litigation, Note and the
the Mortgage
Mortgage Loan
Loan were
were transferred
transferred between
between several lenders
lenders and servicers
before
before Christiana Trust became
became the
the holder
holder of the
the Mortgage.
Mortgage. Id.
Id
2
2
April 20,
On April 20, 2017,
2017, Christiana Trust filed
Christiana Trust filed a Complaint in
a Complaint in Mortgage
Mortgage Foreclosure against the
Foreclosure against the
Property,
Property, requesting an in-rem
requesting an judgment for
in-rem judgment $ 169,306.07. Over
for $169,306.07. Over the course of
the course of lengthy
lengthy litigation,
litigation,
the
the Mortgage
Mortgage and Note underwent several more transfers until the current Plaintiff and Appellee,
MTGLQ
MTGLQ Investors,
Investors, LP.,
LP., became holders and servicers of the Mortgage Loan and Note on June 21,
2019. Id.
2019.
On January 8, 2020
January 8, 2020 and
and January
January 9,
9, 2020, the Honorable
2020, the Honorable Stella
Stella Tsai,
Tsai, Judge
Judge of the Court
of the Court of
of
Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Civil Division conducted a
Common abench
trial.
trial. Plaintiff
Plaintiff MTGLQ
MTGLQ Investors, LP
LP was represented
represented by Bradley J,
J. Osborne, Esquire,
Esquire, and
Appellant Fielding was represented
Appellant Calvin Fielding represented by
by Joshua
Joshua L. Thomas, Esquire.
Esquire.'2 Judge Tsai entered
entered aa
verdict and judgment
judgment in rem in favor of Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, LP, on November 10, 2020.
In a
a Memorandum Opinion
Opinion supporting
supporting the Order of Judgement, Judge Tsai determined that
Defendant Calvin Fielding,
Defendant Calvin Fielding, Sr.
Sr. had
had been in default
been in of the
default of the Note and Mortgage
Note and Mortgage Loan due to
Loan due to his
his
chronic non-payment
chronic non-payment toward
toward his obligations, and
his obligations, and recited
recited the
the following
following three
three relevant
relevant findings of
findings of
fact,
fact, inter alia:
1. "Plaintiff
Plaintiff MTGLQ
MTGLQ Investors, LP. had standing to enforce the Mortgage and
Note.
Note
2. Plaintiff MTGLQ
MTGLQ Investors,
Investors, LP was in possession
possession of a of
avalid Affidavit of
Lost Note,
Note, properly
properly effectuated by
by prior
prior Note servicer Bank of America, NA.
33. Defendant failed to properly
properly execute recission of the loan."
Id. 4-8.
Id at 4.8
On December 7, 2020, Mr. Fielding, through former counsel, filed aatimely appeal of the
Order and Judgment
Order Judgment to the Superior
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania. The appellate court quashed the appeal
February 16,
on February 2, 2021, Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, LP filed aaPraecipe for
February 2,
16, 2021. On February
zWhile the docketed record reflects that
While that Mr.
Mr. Thomas still represents
represents Mr.
Mr. Fielding, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
issued a two-year suspension of Mr.
a two-year Mr Thomas' license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on
October 1,
October 2021. Appellant
I,2021. Appellant has proceeded pro
has proceeded pro se in
in the current
current litigation
litigation before
before this
this Court.
33
of Execution,
Writ of Execution, and
and the
the Philadelphia
Philadelphia Sheriff's
Sheriffs Department initially scheduled
Department initially scheduled a
aSheriff's Sale
Sheriffs Sale
of the
of the Property
Property for
for May 4, 2021.
May 4, 2021. In
In response,
response, Defendant
Defendant Fielding
Fielding filed
filed a
a Motion to Strike the Writ
on April
April 8,
8, 2021 and the sale
sale was continued until
until July
July 13,
13, 2021.
2021.
On June
On June 15, 2021, Judge
15, 2021, Tsai granted
Judge Tsai granted Defendant's
Defendant'sMotion
Motion to Strike the Writ, after
after finding
finding
that the
that the Prothonotary
Prothonotary had lacked
lacked jurisdiction
jurisdiction to
to enter the
the writ,
writ, due to
to then
then pending
pending appeal. As
As a.a
result, the
result, the City
City of
of Philadelphia
Philadelphia Sheriff's Department
Department cancelled the July 13, 2021 sale of the subject
13,2021
Property. Thereafter, the matter was stayed
Property. Thereafter, stayed for over aayear
year due to the entry of Administrative Order
No.
No. 18, by the
18, by the Count
Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, which had
directed a
a moratorium
moratorium of all sheriff's sales due
all sheriffs due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
the COVID-I9
Administrative
Administrative Order No. 18, expired on December 31,
18, expired 2021, and on June 29, 2022, current
31,2021,
servicer, and Plaintiff,
servicer, Plaintiff, MTGLQ of Execution. Thd
MTGLQ Investors, LP, filed aasecond Praecipe for Writ of The
City of Philadelphia
City of Philadelphia Sheriff's Department subsequently scheduled a
Department subsequently a sale of the
the Property f6i
Property fot
October 4, 2022.
October 4, 2022. On
On October
October 3, 2022, at
3, 2022, at or
or around
around 6.24
6:24 P.M.,
P.M., Defendant Calvin Fielding
Defendant Calvin Sr. filed
Fielding Sr. filed
an
an Emergency
Emergency Petition to Stay
Petition to Sale,' which
Stay Sale, which was assigned to
was assigned to this Court as
this Court as the
the presiding Judge of
presiding Judge of
the Philadelphia
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Civil Motions program. In his Petition, Mr. Fielding
repeated
repeated his
his previously disproven and completely
previously disproven completely resolved
resolved claims, that he
he had
had rescinded
rescinded the loan,
loan,
that the lost Note had been fraudulently obtained, and that Plaintiff MTGLQ
MTGLO Investors, LP had
lacked standing
standing to foreclose on the Mortgage
Mortgage and Note. This Court scheduled an emergency
hearing
hearing to address Appellant's
Appellant's Emergency
Emergency Petition to Stay Sale for 10:00 A.M. on October 4,
4,202i
2022
in Courtroom 446 City Hall
446 City Hall Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, PA.
PA
hearing, Mr. Fielding
At the hearing, Fielding appeared
appeared in person
person pro se, and Sara McCaffrey Esquire,
appeared as
appeared counsel for
as counsel for Plaintiff
Plaintiff by
by phone,
phone, because
because Appellant
Appellant had
had filed
filed to
to abide by this
abide by this Court's
Court's
Appellant interchangeably references this filing as both an Emergency Motion to Stay a
Appellant
3 aSale and a
aPetition to Stay
Sale.
Sale
4
4
previously issued Ex
previously issued Er Parte Order directing him
Order directing him to serve Plaintiff
to serve Plaintiff with
with aacopy
copy of
of his
his Emergency
Petition
Petition to
to Stay and Rule
Stay and and Notice
Rule and Notice of hearing date,
of hearing date, time,
time, and
and location.
location. See Notes of Testimony
from hearing
from hearing on October 4,
4, 2022 p.
p. 13.
13
Counsel
Counsel for
for Plaintiff, McCaffrey, Esquire,
Plaintiff, Sara Mccaffrey, Esquire, duly informed
informed this Court that
that MTGLQ
Investors,
Investors, LP had previously
LP had and properly
previously and served Appellant
properly served Appellant with
with aacopy
copy of
of the
the Writ
Writ and
and Notice of
Notice of
the Sheriff Sale by
by certified mail and by
by posting
posting to the Property. Id.
Id at 16.
16. Plaintiffs
Plaintiff's attorney
further
further related
related that Mr.
Mr. Fielding
Fielding had rejected all offers
had rejected offers of loan mitigation, contrary to his false
false
representations
representations to this Court.
Court. Id. at 17.
17. In
In response, Appellant repeated
response, Appellant repeated his claims that
that he
he had
loan, and that the Affidavit of
rescinded the loan, of Lost Note had been fraudulently issued.
issued. He demanded
that
that the
the matter
matter be
be listed
listed for
for another
another trial.
trial. Id. at 20.
20. Having
Having determined that
that Appellant
Appellant had
had presented
presented
zero credible basis for his requested
requested relief, this Court denied the Emergency Petition to Stay Sale
Sale:
Id. at. 22. The
ld at. The Property
Property was
was sold at sheriff sale and
and auction
auction that
that same day. No
No appeal was
was filed.
filed.
Instead of filing any timely
filing any timely appeal
appeal of this Court's Order of October 4, 2022, Appellant filed
aaMotion to Set Aside the Sale on October
October 17, 2022, which
which regurgitated the
the same
same arguments that
that
had been raised within his Emergency
Emergency Petition to Stay the Sale and during prior oral argument and
offered testimony.
testimony. This Court formally
formally denied the Motion to Set Aside the Sale on November 10,
2022. Mr.
2022. Mr. Calvin Fielding
Fielding filed an appeal
appeal of this Court's Order of November 10, 2022 denying the
Motion to Set Aside the Sale on December 6, 2022.
On January
January 4, 2023, this Court directed Appellant
4, 2023, Appellant to file a
aConcise Statement of Errors
Complained of on
Complained of on Appeal, pursuant to
Appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Rule
Rule of Appellate Procedure
of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
1925(b). In
In
response,
response, Appellant
Appellant filed aa1925(b)
1925(b) Statement raising the following verbatim twelve
twelve ((12)
12) claims:
1. "Whether
Whether thethe trial
trial court
court erred
erred in
in denying
denying my
my motion to Set
motion to Set Aside The Sale,
Aside The Sale,
giving
giving no
no basis
basis for the denial
for the denial and
and dismissal..
dismissal...
5
2.2. Whether
Whether the
the trial denying my
trial court erred in denying my motion
motion to
to Set
Set Aside The Sale,
Sale,
since The sale should not have been permitted
permitted to proceed because aa loan
modification was offered and pending....
pending.
3.
3. Whether
Whether the
the trial court erred
trial court erred in denying my
in denying my motion
motion to Set Aside
to Set The Sale,
Aside The Sale,
since The sale
since The sale should
should not
not have been permitted
have been permitted to
to proceed because it
proceed because it was aabreach
breach
contract...
of contract.
4.
4 Whether the trial court erred in denying denying my motion to Set Aside The Sale,
since the sale should not have been permitted permitted to proceed because the Plaintiff
admitted
admitted theythey never sent a
never sent correct Notice
a correct Notice of of Intent
Intent to
to Foreclose...
Foreclose...
5. Whether the trial court erred in in denying
denying my motion to Set Aside The Sale,
because the Plaintiff lacked standing.
standing...
6. Whether the trial court erred in failing failing to properly
properly attach an opinion..
opinion...
7. Whether the trial court erred fails to recognize recognize the new evidence of the lost
note robo signed
signed documents and forge forge file by by the plaintiff's complaint...
plaintiffs complaint..
8. Whether the trial court erred of the plaintiff complaint of having a a clear
chain
chain of of Title
Title without
without proof
proof of
of assignment...
assignment...
9.
9, Whether the trial court erred in in ignoring
ignoring the Violation Cease & & Desist order
of evidence from the SEC filings filings that the
t h at t he companies have a
a long history of non-
existing
existing and abuse and has been penalized penalized an agreement
agreement with the SEC...
10.
10, Whether
Whether the trial court
the trial court erred
erred in in failing
failing to allow for
to allow for the defense Declaration
the defense Declaration
of Private
of Private Investigator,
Investigator, Mortgage
Mortgage auditor auditor William
William J,J. Paatalo
Paatalo (sp)
(sp) findings of
findings of
Facts...
11.1 Whether The trial courts allow aaVolition of aafalse substitution after the
default waswas entered
entered in
in trial
trial court
court proceeding
proceeding was was ongoing...
12.
2. Whether
Whether the trial
trial courts
courts erred
erred to ignoring
ignoring Violation
Violation Cease
Cease & & Desist
Desist order of
Judgements from the Office of the Comptroller of Currency by Continuing
consent Judgements
to
to use
use Deceptive
Deceptive Practices.
Practices. Voide
Voide (sp)
(sp) Notices
Notices of Default.
Default. Notices
Notices of
of sale."
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Despite Appellant's listing
Despite Appellant's listing of a
amyriad
myriad of perceived errors, no claim has been presented
that deserving of appellate
that is deserving appellate relief. Appellant complained
relief. Appellant complained in
in claims numbered one
one ((1)
1) and six
six (6),
that this Court had erred by attaching to its November 10, 2022 Order, aamemorandum opinion
by not attaching
stating the
stating the rationale
rationale for the
the dismissal
dismissal of his
his Motion to Set Aside the
the Sale. Since neither
neither the
the
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania nor the Philadelphia
Philadelphia Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that a
a trial court include an
Opinion or Memorandum with their Orders, these claims should be summarily dismissed
Opinion dismissed.
66
Moreover, already responded
Moreover, since this Court had already responded to Appellant's previously filed and
litigated
litigated Emergency
EmergencyMotion
Motion to
to Set Aside the
Set Aside the Sale,
Sale, which
which had
had included
included mirror
mirror imaged claims to
to the
the
subject Motion
subject Motion to Set Aside the Sale, Appellant
Appellant had demonstrated no prejudice for this Court's lack
of additional comments within the subject
subject Order. Appellant did not appeal this Court's ruling and
had been well-advised of this Court's rationale and of Judge Tsai's previous relevant findings.
had
Within appellate
appellate claim number two
two (2),
(2), Appellant asserted "that the sale should not have
been
been permitted proceed because a
permitted to proceed a loan modification was offered and pending." This complaint
directly contradicts eredible
directly credible evidence that had been introduced during the hearing held before this
Court on October 4,
Court 4, 2022
2022 in response
response to
to Mr.
Mr. Fielding's
Fielding's last minute
minute Emergency
Emergency Petition
Petition to
to Stay the
the
Sale. Indeed,
Indeed, the relevant evidence that had been introduced demonstrated quite convincingly that
Appellant's claim of a
Appellant's apending
pending loan modification had been patently false because Appellant had
repeatedly the loan obligations
repeatedly refused Plaintiff's offers to him to modify the obligations.
Additionally,
Additionally, Appellant's
Appellant's claim number three (3), recites that the sheriff sale should not
have
have gone
gone forward
forward because
because it
it"was
was aabreach contract.," This complaint should be
breach of contract_" be dismissed as
vague and overly
it is too vague broad. Pa. R.A.P. 1925()(4(ii)
overly broad. 1925(b)(4)(ii) requires an appellant to "concisely
identify
identify each error that the appellant
appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to
the judge."
be raised for the judge." A
A vague
vague and overly broad issue is deemed waived as it is equivocal to not
raising
raising the claim at all. See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148
• Wyeth, 148 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013); Hess v
v.
Fox Rothschild,
Rothschild, LLP,
LLP, 925 A.2d 798, 803-04
803-04 (Pa. Ct. 2007). Mr. Fielding's third claim is so
(Pa. Super. Ct.
ambiguous that this Court must
ambiguous guess as to the source of his
must guess his grievance. Thus, this patently
patently meritless
protest
protest had been waived. Similarly, Appellant does not narrate a
Similarly, Appellant acoherent sentence within claim
eleven ((H).
numbered eleven 11). Since this Court again
again cannot reasonably determine what
what claim Appellant
Appellant
is asserting, it has been waived as undecipherable.
7
7
Appellant's remaining
Appellant's complaints lack any legitimate factual or legal basis that could
remaining complaints
warrant any
warrant any relief.
relief. Mr.
Mr, Fielding
Fielding submitted zero evidence to justify setting aside the sheriff sale of
the subject
the subject property.
property, Instead,
Instead, his Motion to Set Aside the Sale simply reiterated his claims from
previously
previously litigated
litigated foreclosure action that had long since been entered as a
a Judgment and Order
following trial.
following trial
Specifically, Pa.R.C.P. No. 3132 sets forth direction for when petitions to set aside sheriff
Specifically, s
sheriffs
sales may
may be
be allowed:
"Upon
Upon petition
petition of any party
of any party in
in interest before delivery
interest before delivery of
of the
the personal
personal property or
property or
of
of the sheriff's deed to
the sheriffs to real property,
property, the court
court may,
may, upon
upon proper
proper cause shown, set
aside the sale and order a a resale or enter any
any other order which may be just and
proper
proper under
under the
the circumstances."
Pa.R.C.P.
Pa.RC.P. No. 3132.
No. 3132. In determining
In determining whether
whether to set aside
to set aside a sheriff's sale,
a sheriff's sale, "[e]quitable
"[equitable
considerations govern
considerations govern the
the trial
trial court's decision." Bank of Am.,
Bank of Am., N.A.
N.A. v. of Hood,
• Estate of Hood, 47 A.3d
A.3d
1208, 1211
1208, 1211 (Pa. Super. Ct.
(Pa. Super. Ct. 2012)
2012) (internal citation omitted).
(internal citation omitted). It is well
It is settled that
well settled that the
the burden of
burden of
proof
proof is
is on the
the petitioner:
petitioner
"As aageneral
As general rule,
rule, the burden of proving
proving circumstances warranting the exercise of
tthe
he court's equitable
equitable powers
powers is on the applicant,
applicant, and the application to set aside aa
sheriffs sale
sheriff's sale may
may be refused because
because of the
the insufficiency
insufficiency of proof
proof to
to support
support the
the
material
material allegations
allegations of
of the
the application,
application, which
which are
are generally
generally required
required to
to be
be
established
established byby clear evidence."
clear evidence."
Id. (internal
Id (internal citation omitted).
omitted). A
A trial court's decision on aapetition to set aside will "not
[be] reverse[d]
[be] reverse[d] ...
.. absent an abuse of discretion." Id.Id
Appellant
Appellant had
had requested
requested this Court exercise
this Court exercise its
its equitable
equitable powers
powers based on a
based on a vague
vague
proclamation of fraud,
proclamation of fraud, and of aafalse
and of false statement
statement that
that there had been
there had been aapending
pending loan
loan modification
modification
agreement. Mr. Fielding
agreement. Fielding provided
provided no evidence to support either assertion. To the contrary,
Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, by
by and through
through its counsel, had previously
previously and repeatedly debunked these bold claims
both during
both during the
the trial and later
trial and during subsequent
later during subsequent hearing
hearing that
that this Court had
this Court conducted on
had conducted on October
October
8
8
4, 2022
4, 2022 to
to address
address the
the earlier Emergency
Emergeney Petition to Stay the Sheriff Sale. No
No appeal
appeal was
was filed
filed
following
following this Court Order that had been entered denying
this Court denying the Emergency Petition to Stay the
Sheriff
Sheriff Sale
Sale on October 4,
on October 4, 2022.
2022. Instead, Appellant subsequently
Instead, Appellant subsequently filed
filed the
the meritless
meritless Motion
Motion to
to Set
Set
Aside the
the Sale which had
had constituted aabelated and repeated
repeated attempt
attempt to revive
revive previously
previously disposed
claims.
Appellant's Motion
Appellant's Motion to
to Set Aside the Sale, on its
Sale, on its face, contained vague,
face, contained vague, repetitive,
repetitive, and
and
conclusory written
conclusory written statements that had been devoid of any factual or legal support. For instance,
Mr. Fielding referred
Mr. Fielding referred to a pending
"pending loan modification agreement"
agreement" between himself and MTGLQ
as justification
as justification to set aside
to set aside the
the sale.
sale. However,
However, the
the record soundly reflects
record soundly reflects that
that Mr.
Mr. Fielding
Fielding
repeatedly
repeatedly rejected
rejected Plaintiff's offers to
Plaintiffs offers to enter into aaloan
enter into loan modification agreement leading
modification agreement leading up
up to
to the
the
Sheriff's
Sheriffs Sale. Nor Appellant provide
Nor did Appellant provide any
any documentation or
or evidence which
which had
had demonstrated
that
that there had
had been any subsequent discussions about aaloan modification. Given Mr.
any subsequent Mr. Fielding's
characterization of Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs as "bottom-feeder debt
debt collectors," there is
is no
no reason to believe that
that
he
he had approached any loan modification effort with good
approached any good faith intentions.
intentions
Appellate nine (9)
Appellate claims numbered nine (9) and twelve
twelve ((2),
12), referenced unrelated findings against
prior
prior Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, hereinafter "WSFS",
Wilmington Savings WSFS", made by the United
States Securities and Exchange
Exchange Commission, hereafter ""SEC,"
SEC," and Office of the Comptroller of
Currency. These criticisms lacked any
Currency. any nexus to Appellant's circumstances.' Notably, Mr.
Appellant's current circumstances. Mr,
Fielding's
Fielding's "Exhibit I" which documented an SEC decision to institute cease-and-desist
proceedings against
proceedings against WSFS,
WSFS, pertained
pertained to
to their
their dealings with aaMr.
dealings with Andrew Proctor.
Mr. Andrew Proctor. As
As such, this
such, this
document was completely irrelevant and not permissibly
was completely permissibly entered evidence. Moreover, Appellant's
references to these
references findings offered no
these extraneous findings justification to
no justification to set aside the
the sale.
While Mr.
While
4 Fielding referred to an
Mr. Fielding an Office of the
the Comptroller of Currency decision as an attached Exhibit "J" in
Exhibit l in his
petition,
petition, he
he failed
failed to attach exhibit.
attach the exhibit
99
The remainder of Mr. Fielding's
Fielding's claims, lack of evidence notwithstanding, constituted
nothing
nothing more than baseless attacks upon
upon the validity of the underlying final judgement that had
been entered in 2020.
been 2020. Notably,
Notably, aatrial court may not modify an Order after thirty (30) days of its
entry. P.A.R.C.P
entry. P.A.R.C.P §$ 5505. See also Simpson
Simpson v.
• Allstate Ins. Co., 504 A.24
A.2d 335, 337
337 (Pa. Ct.
(Pa. Super. Ct
1986)
1986) ("A
(A entered in adverse proceedings
proceedings becomes final if no appeal therefrom is filed within
thirty days.")
thirty days.") Once this window passes,
passes, aatrial court may not rescind an order or relitigate the
underlying Simpson at
underlying issues. Simpson at 337. Similarly, aacourt may not
337, Similarly, not relitigate
relitigate issues determined by aa
court of higher
higher or concurrent jurisdiction. Com. v.
jurisdiction. Com ». Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa.
(Pa. 1995)
(discussing the "law of the case" doctrine).
(discussing
Appellant's
Appellant's claims, that as the previous
previous Defendant, he had rescinded the Note and
Mortgage,
Mortgage, and that the Plaintiff MTGLQ had lacked standing to pursue the foreclosure, and that
the Affidavit ofLost
Affidavit of Lost Note had been fraudulent. Each assertion had been previously presented during
trial before Judge
Judge Tsai,
Tsai, who found them without merit, and entered aajudgement in favor of the
Plaintiff
Plaintiff in 2020. Mr.
in 2020. Mr. Fielding
Fielding appealed
appealed the verdict,
verdict, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
appeal. Thus, the Order and Judgment had become final well before Appellant
dismissed his appeal.
appeared the eve of the Sheriff Sale and again after the property had been
appeared before this Court on the
sold. Since the underlying
underlying facts of this case had been long since settled, Appellant is not entitled
to relitigate them.
them
Summarily, Appellant has failed to present any clear evidence or reason to warrant this
Summarily,
Court to exercise its equitable
equitable power
power to set aside the Sheriff's
Sheriffs Sale.
Sale. Instead, he presented this
Court with wild,
wild, baseless claims to illegally
illegally relitigate
relitigate aalong-settled matter. Since there had been
no proper
proper cause demonstrated to set
set aside the Sheriffs
Sheriff's Sale, this Court had committed no error or
1
abuse in discretion by
by denying Mr. Calvin Fielding's
Fielding'sMotion
Motion to Set Aside the Sale
Sale.
10
IO
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing
foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully requests that its
its Order of November
10, 2022 denying Appellant's
10, Appellant's Motion to Set
Motion to Set Aside the Sale
Aside the Sale be affirmed.
BY
RY THE COURT:
-;? - ✓-
Hon.
1•_
H:n. Anne ;�rlc
-/
�oyle,
arie B. Coyle, J.
11