United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
WELLS FARGO, N.A., as trustees for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-PR2 Trust, Plaintiff,
JODI LITUS and ALISON LITUS, Defendants.
RICHARD P. CONABOY, District Judge.
Here we consider Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43) filed on February 24, 2014. On the same date Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) and Statement of the Material Facts (Doc. 45). With this motion, Plaintiff seeks judgment in its favor on the mortgage foreclosure action (Doc. 1) filed in this Court on October 24, 2012. Defendants did not file a brief in opposition to the motion and the time for doing so has passed. Thus, pursuant to Local Rule 7.6 of the Local Rules of Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Defendants are deemed not to oppose the motion. Nonetheless, we will proceed with an analysis of the merits of Plaintiff's motion. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the motion is properly granted.
The property in this case is located at 1085 Cherry Lane, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania ("Subject Property"). (Doc. 45 ¶ 1.) The Subject Property is not Defendants' primary residence; they reside at 386 Saly Road, Yardley, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 45 ¶ 2.)
On or about June 24, 2004, Defendants borrowed $254, 000.00 from Washington Mutual Bank, FA. (Doc. 45 ¶ 3.) On June 24, 2004, Defendants executed a Promissory Note in the amount of $254, 000.00 in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, FA. (Doc. 45 ¶ 4) On the same date, Defendants executed a Mortgage upon the Subject Property in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, FA. (Doc. 45 ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff is the current holder of the Mortgage and Promissory Note. (Doc. 45 ¶¶ 6, 7.) An Assignment of Mortgage in favor of Plaintiff was executed and recorded prior to the commencement of the instant action. (Doc. 45 ¶ 8.)
The terms of the Note and Mortgage require Defendants to repay the mortgage loan, with interest, in monthly installments of principal and interest beginning on August 1, 2004, and continuing through the maturity date of July 1, 2034. (Doc. 45 ¶ 9.) Defendants have not made any payments since August 1, 2010. (Doc. 45 ¶ 10.)
On October 15, 2010, Defendants were provided with a pre-foreclosure notice, advising them of the default, and the steps to cure it. (Doc. 45 ¶ 11.)
As of December 31, 2013, the amount due and owing to Plaintiff totals $329, 222.84. (Doc. 45 ¶ 12.)
As noted above, the Complaint in this action was filed on October 24, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43), Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44), and Statement of the Material Facts (Doc. 45). Defendants did not file a brief in opposition to the motion and the time for doing so has passed.
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant demonstrates there is no "genuine issue as to any material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
"An issue is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, and a factual dispute is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law." Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, a court must resolve all factual doubts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor ...