United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL2, Plaintiff,
LUCILLE ADRAGNA, Defendant.
RICHARD P. CONABOY, District Judge.
Here we consider Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) timely filed on February 28, 2014. On the same date Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) and Statement of the Material Facts (Doc. 30). With this motion, Plaintiff seeks judgment in its favor on the mortgage foreclosure action (Doc. 2) filed in this Court on April 23, 2013. Defendant 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, Defendant is 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 known as HC 89, Box 771, Pocono Summit, Pennsylvania ("Subject Property"). (Doc. 30 ¶ 1.) Defendant is the record owner of Subject Property. (Doc. 30 ¶ 2.)
On or about September 27, 2005, Defendant borrowed $145, 530.00 from Long Beach Mortgage Company. (Doc. 30 ¶ 3.) On September 27, 2005, Defendant executed a Promissory Note in the amount of $145, 530.00 in favor of Long Beach Mortgage Company. (Doc. 30 ¶ 4.) On the same date, Defendant executed a Mortgage upon the Subject Property in favor of Long Beach Mortgage Company. (Doc. 30 ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff is the current holder of the Mortgage and is in possession of the Promissory Note and Mortgage. (Doc. 30 ¶¶ 6, 7.) An Assignment of Mortgage in favor of Plaintiff was executed and recorded prior to the commencement of the instant action. (Doc. 30 ¶ 8.)
The terms of the Note and Mortgage require Defendant to repay the mortgage loan, with interest, in monthly installments of principal and interest beginning on November 1, 2005, and continuing through the maturity date of October 1, 2035. (Doc. 30 ¶ 9.) Defendant has failed to make all payments since October 1, 2009. (Doc. 30 ¶ 10.)
On September 23, 2011, a Notice of Intent to Foreclose Mortgage was sent to Defendant. (Doc. 30 ¶ 11.)
As of February 28, 2014, the amount due and owing to Plaintiff totals $191, 292.86. (Doc. 45 ¶ 12.)
As noted above, the Complaint in this action was filed on April 23, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28), Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29), and Statement of the Material Facts (Doc. 30).
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 ...