Randy L. Sebastian, West Chester, for appellant.
Daniel M. Haug, Ambler, submitted a brief for appellee, Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Bd. of the Am. Baptist Churches.
No appearance entered nor brief submitted for appellee, Elizabeth Goldsworthy, a/k/a Elizabeth Goldsworthy Gordon.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Spaeth, J., files a concurring opinion. Watkins, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 325]
In this appeal,*fn1 we are asked to decide whether the Act of January 30, 1974, P.L. 13, No. 6, 41 P.S. § 101 et seq. or, more specifically, those sections which provide for notice of intention to foreclose*fn2 and the right to cure a
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 326]
default,*fn3 may be applied in a case where the mortgage was executed prior to the effective date of the Act, but the default occurred subsequent to that date. The lower court here held that those provisions may not be so applied. We disagree. Nevertheless, for the reasons developed below, we affirm the order of the lower court dismissing appellant's preliminary objections.
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 327]
The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows: On October 7, 1975, plaintiff-appellee, a nonprofit religious corporation, commenced an action in mortgage foreclosure against defendant-mortgagors, former husband and wife, alleging three separate grounds of default under the terms of a mortgage dated January 24, 1968.*fn4 Defendant-appellant
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 328]
Raymond H. Goldsworthy filed preliminary objections to the complaint alleging, inter alia, appellee's failure to comply or to aver compliance with Act No. 6.*fn5 Appellee filed answers to appellant's preliminary objections and, by order dated August 12, 1976, the lower court dismissed those preliminary objections. However, on September 12, 1976, the lower court amended its prior order so as to permit appellant to file a petition for an interlocutory appeal. We granted appellant's petition on October 12, 1976, and, therefore, the issues raised by his preliminary objections are now properly before us.
At the outset, it must be noted that the validity and enforceability of "acceleration" clauses are not here questioned. Generally, a provision in a mortgage agreement according the ...