Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Thomas

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 7, 2014

U.S. BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-BC13,
v.
AARON A. THOMAS AND ANDREA MARTIN-THOMAS, APPEAL OF: AARON A. THOMAS

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Order May 3, 2013, Court of Common Pleas, Berks County, Civil Division at No. 11-17398.

BEFORE: DONOHUE, OTT and PLATT[*], JJ.

MEMORANDUM

DONOHUE, J.:

Aaron Thomas ("Thomas") appeals pro se[1] from the order of court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by U.S. Bank, N.A. ("U.S. Bank") in this mortgage foreclosure action.[2] We affirm.

The facts underlying this appeal are relatively straightforward. The trial court summarized them as follows:

On August 29, 2003, [Thomas] executed a promissory note regarding a $52, 200 loan for the purchase of real property. The lender was Option One Mortgage Corporation. The same day, … [Thomas] and Andrea Martin-Thomas[] executed a mortgage on the property in favor of Option One, securing the debt obligation under the note. Both Thomases also signed a rider to the note that contained additional agreements.
On February 27, 2007, Option One assigned the mortgage and note to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Structured Securities Corporation Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2003-BC13. LaSalle Bank then merged with Bank of America on October 17, 2008. On September 6, 2011, after this case had already begun, Bank of America executed an agreement with [U.S. Bank], under which U.S. Bank became the successor trustee of the above-named trust, the trust property of which includes the mortgage and note at issue. Each of these events was confirmed by documentation attached to [U.S. Bank's] motion for summary judgment. The servicer of the loan has also changed at least once, with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., taking over servicing in December 2003.
[Thomas] missed the payment due October 1, 2009, and has made no payments since. Both the note and the mortgage expressly obligate [Thomas] to make monthly payments on the debt evidenced by the note.
As a result of this default, [the Plaintiff], at the time Bank of America, sent [Thomas] the proper notices and then filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure on July 13, 2011. On August 11, 2011, [Thomas] filed an answer with new matter and counterclaim. Plaintiff, still listed as bank of America, filed a response to the new matter and counterclaim on September 20, 2011. On July 20, 2012, [Thomas] filed an amended new matter and counterclaim. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff, now identifying itself as U.S. Bank although it was not yet formally substituted as a party, filed a response to the amended new matter and counterclaim.
[Thomas] then filed a motion to strike the response, apparently on the basis of U.S. Bank's failure to formally intervene. The court denied the motion, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration. … .
[U.S. Bank] filed a motion for summary judgment on January 29, 2013. On March 1, 2013, [U.S. Bank] filed a praecipe to formally substitute U.S. Bank as successor in interest to Bank of America and to change the caption accordingly. On March 7, 2013, [Thomas] filed a 'Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice for Lack of Standing, ' which essentially functioned as his response to the motion for summary judgment. The court heard oral argument on both motions on April 19, 2013, and took the matter under advisement. The court issued two orders on May 3, 2013, denying [Thomas'] motion to dismiss and granting [U.S. Bank's] motion for summary judgment. [Thomas] filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2013.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/13, at 3-4 (footnotes omitted).

Thomas raises three issues on appeal, which he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.