Nationstar v. Masucci,T.

J-A28002-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
THOMAS MASUCCI
Appellant No. 3223 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 6, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2013-03627
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 03, 2014
Appellant, Thomas Masucci, appeals from the judgment entered in the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of Appellee, Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, in this mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW IN
ITS GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT UPON A DEFECTIVE
NOTE TRANSFER?
2. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW BY
DEEMING THE COMPLAINT’S AVERMENTS ADMITTED
ALLOWING FOR ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT?
3. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW IN
J-A28002-14
ITS GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT UPON AN
INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY TESTIMONIAL AFFIDAVIT?
4. DID THE DEFECTIVE ACT 6/91 NOTICE PRECLUDE
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT?
(Appellant’s Brief at 9).
As a prefatory matter, issues not raised in the trial court are waived
and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Majorsky v. Douglas, 58
A.3d 1250 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 732, 70 A.3d 811(2013), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 910, 187 L.Ed.2d 780 (2014);
Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 759, 766 (Pa.Super. 2006),
appeal denied, 591 Pa. 691, 917 A.2d 846 (2007); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). To
preserve claims for appellate review, appellants must comply whenever the
trial court orders a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal; any
issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.
Majorsky, supra at 1258; Stevenson, supra.Instantly, Appellant presents four issues for our review. Although he
listed issues one, three and four in his Rule 1925(b) statement, he raises
issue two for the first time in his appellate brief. Thus, we deem Appellant’s
second issue waived because he did not raise it in clear terms in his Rule
1925(b) statement. See id.After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Cheryl L.
Austin, we conclude Appellant’s remaining issues merit no relief. The trial
-2-
J-A28002-14
court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the
questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed February 4, 2014, at 3-
14) (finding: no issue of material fact existed that Appellant was mortgagor
of property, recorded mortgage is in specified amount, and Appellant
defaulted under terms of his mortgage every month since September 1,
2012; given Appellant’s admission of default, Appellee’s uncontroverted
affidavit concerning default did not either drive or preclude judgment in
favor of Appellee; no evidence of record showed Appellant was prejudiced by
Appellee’s error in listing itself as original lender in Act 6/91 Notice; Appellee
demonstrated it was real party in interest, as current holder of mortgage by
virtue of assignment, and as current holder of note, Appellee had right to
enforce it against Appellant). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial
court’s opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/3/2014
-3-
Circulated 10/21/2014 03:44 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 03:44 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 03:44 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 03:44 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 03:44 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 03:44 PM
Circulated 10/21/2014 03:44 PM