Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Civil Division, No(s): 2012-04352. Entered June 12, 2014. Before SOMMER, J.
Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Philadelphia, for CitiMortgage and Mortgage Electronic Systems, appellees.
Jacqueline Greenberg, Florham Park, __ N.J. __, for Mortgage I.T., appellee.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., ALLEN, J., and MUNDY, J.
Appellant, Leslie-Eve Orman, appeals pro se from the June 12, 2014 order granting the motion for summary judgment and entering judgment in favor of Appellees, Mortgage I.T. (MortgageIt), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), and Citimortgage, Inc. (Citi). After careful review, we vacate and remand with instructions.
The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural background of this case as follows.
This case involves a dispute over a residential mortgage. In [sic] actually began in January of 2011, when [Appellant] along with Thomas Orman filed inter alia, an Action to Quiet Title and reform the mortgage in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against ... MortgageIt ... and others. The substance of the Federal suit was that [Appellant] wanted to have the mortgage removed as a lien on the title. The Defendants therein filed a Motion to Dismiss [Appellant]'s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The documents at issue in Federal Court were a loan and mortgage against [Appellant]'s home at 888 Woodlawn Ave., Phoenixville, PA 19460. MortgageIt
was the original lender on the note (loan) and mortgage. MortgageIt subsequently transferred its interest in the note and mortgage to CitiMortgage. [Appellant] acknowledged the transfer when, in filing one of her Amended Complaints, she dropped MortgageIt as a defendant.
[Appellant] then began filing a series of Amended Complaints, Requests for Information, Qualified Written Requests all of which were responded to by [Citi]. On March 30, 2012, in a detailed Opinion, which reviewed all of the documents and allegations, [the District Court] granted Defendants['] Motion to dismiss. [Appellant did not file a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals.]
On April 30, 2012, [Appellant] commenced the instant matter in the [trial court]. In her Original Complaint [Appellant] named MortgageIt as the only defendant. [Appellant] raised here all of the same substantive issues. Specifically, [Appellant] sought to reform the mortgage and note and to Quiet Title. MortgageIt filed an answer and [Citi] filed an Answer and New Matter as the successor to MortgageIt.
[Appellant obtained a default judgment on June 18, 2012. On August 9, 2012, MortgageIt filed a petition to open said default judgment. The trial court entered an order granting MortgageIt's petition to open on October 2, 2012.]
[Appellant] then began filing [a] Request for Admissions, [a] Request for Documents, Motions to Strike Answers, [a] Motion for Summary Judgment, [a] Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, [a] Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint, [a] Second Motion to Amend Complaint, [a] Motion for Interlocutory Summary Judgment, a Third Amended Complaint and various " Statements of Indisputable Facts" . As to the various Amended Complaints, [Appellant] never sought leave of [the trial c]ourt nor the assent and acquiescence of any defendant. As a result the [trial c]ourt was ...