evidence] to a jury." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 251-52.
B. Mortgage Foreclosure
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show the existence of an obligation secured by a mortgage, and a default on that obligation. In re Kelly, 150 Bankr. 121, 122 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1992); United States v. Freidus, 769 F. Supp. 1266, 1277 (S.D. N.Y. 1991). Mr. Tiedeken does not dispute the validity of the mortgage or his obligation under it. Further, he concedes that he failed to make the balloon payment by the May 1, 1994 deadline, and that he has failed to cure his default since that time by remitting the unpaid principal balance. According to the provisions of the agreement, therefore, Mr. Tiedeken has defaulted on his obligation under the mortgage. Thus, Chemical is entitled to judgment at this stage unless Mr. Tiedeken can raise a disputed issue of material fact regarding his defense. Freidus, 769 F. Supp. at 1277. Accordingly, we turn to address the merits of Mr. Tiedeken's equitable estoppel defense.
C. Equitable Estoppel
As noted above, Mr. Tiedeken invokes the doctrine of equitable estoppel in an attempt to fend off Chemical's request for summary judgment. Specifically, Mr. Tiedeken argues that by accepting monthly payments after May 1, 1994, Chemical induced Mr. Tiedeken to believe that it would not demand the balloon payment. Thus, Mr. Tiedeken relied on the purported inducement and continued to make the payments, to his detriment. Under Pennsylvania law, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applied to "prevent a person from taking a position that is inconsistent with a position previously taken or acting differently than the manner in which that person induced another person by word or deed to expect." Louis W. Epstein Family Partnership v. KMart Corp., 828 F. Supp. 328, 343 (E.D. Pa. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 13 F.3d 762 (3d Cir. 1994). Thus, the elements of equitable estoppel are (1) an inducement, whether by act, representation, or silence when one ought to speak, that causes one to believe the existence of certain facts; (2) justifiable reliance on that inducement; and (3) prejudice to the one who relies if the inducer is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. Zivari v. Willis, 416 Pa. Super. 432, 611 A.2d 293, 295 (1992)(quoting Northwestern Nat'l Bank v. Commonwealth, 345 Pa. 192, 196-97, 27 A.2d 20, 23 (1942)). To constitute inducement, a person must commit an act or forbearance that causes a change in condition resulting in disadvantage to the one induced. Novelty Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Siskind, 500 Pa. 432, 457 A.2d 502, 503 (1983). These elements must be established by the party asserting equitable estoppel by "clear, precise and unequivocal evidence." KMart, 828 F. Supp. at 344; Blofsen v. Cutaiar, 460 Pa. 411, 333 A.2d 841, 844 (1975).
Upon consideration of the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Tiedeken, we conclude that the facts presented do not warrant the invocation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. First, Mr. Tiedeken has failed to offer any evidence to suggest that Chemical intended not to demand the balloon payment. Indeed, there has been no suggestion that Chemical made some affirmative representation to that effect. To the contrary, Chemical filed this foreclosure action against Mr. Tiedeken in July of 1994, and maintained it even as it accepted the monthly payments. Thus, by persisting in the prosecution of this action, Chemical signaled its intention to assert the balloon payment provision, not to forego it. To the extent that Mr. Tiedeken relied on Chemical's acceptance of the monthly payments as indicative of its intent not to assert the balloon provision, therefore, such reliance was unjustified.
Finally, we cannot identify any harm or prejudice incurred by Mr. Tiedeken as a result of Chemical's acceptance of the monthly payments, since those payments will be applied in his favor to the amount he owes Chemical. Accordingly, we find that Mr. Tiedeken has failed to raise disputed factual issues which could give rise to an estoppel defense. Moreover, there is no dispute that he has failed to meet his obligations under the mortgage agreement. As a result, we must enter an award of summary judgment in favor of Chemical as to liability. We turn now to determine the extent of Mr. Tiedeken's liability to Chemical under the mortgage agreement.
D. Amount Due
The parties dispute the extent of Mr. Tiedeken's liability. In support of its motion, Chemical has submitted an affidavit, which outlines the costs allegedly due it, which we have set forth above. Mr. Tiedeken raises a number of objections, including an argument that he is not subject to late charges, that the appraisal and environmental costs are not supported by the agreement, and that the amount requested does not reflect payments that he made. Accordingly, we will order Chemical to submit, within fourteen days of the attached order's entry, an updated affidavit detailing the extent of Mr. Tiedeken's liability and a brief memorandum in support of the various costs for which it seeks reimbursement. Mr. Tiedeken shall then have fourteen days from the date of service to file a memorandum in opposition.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted on the issue of Mr. Tiedeken's liability, but denied on the issue of damages, pending further briefing. An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 1995, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED as to Defendant Tiedeken's liability. It is furthered ordered that Plaintiff shall submit, within fourteen (14) days of this Order's entry, an affidavit detailing the extent of Plaintiff's liability and a brief memorandum in support of the various costs for which it seeks reimbursement. Defendant Tiedeken shall then have fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file a memorandum in opposition.
BY THE COURT:
J. Curtis Joyner, J.