U.S. BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE LXS 2007-7N TRUST FUND
TRACY HUA AND CHI HUNG MU, Appellants
from the Judgment Entered November 21, 2017 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s):
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J.
Hua and Chi Hung Mu, Appellants, appeal from the judgment in
favor of Appellee, U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee for
Certificateholders of the LXS 2007-7N Trust Fund ("U.S.
Bank"). Upon review, we affirm.
trial court set forth the following facts and procedural
On June 19, 2014, [U.S. Bank] commenced this action by filing
a Complaint against [Appellants]. [U.S. Bank's] Complaint
alleged that [Appellants] defaulted on their mortgage and
that [U.S. Bank was] owed $178, 857.88, with interest due and
owing at a variable rate, which was $11.17 per diem at the
time of filing. [U.S. Bank] also alleged that [it was] due
other costs and charges collectible under the mortgage, and
for the foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property.
[Appellants] filed an Answer and New Matter on July 17, 2014.
The case was deferred on June 10, 2015, and again, on October
20, 2015, due to [Appellant] Tracy Hua filing for [C]hapter
13 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Jersey (Trenton).
On March 15, 2016, [U.S. Bank] filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. On April 8, 2016, [Appellants] filed a pro
se response to [U.S. Bank's] Motion for Summary
Judgment. On June 8, 2016, [U.S. Bank's] Motion for
Summary Judgment was denied. On September 12, 2016, [U.S.
Bank] filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment.
[Appellants] filed a pro se response on September
12, 2016. On November 28, 2016, the second Motion for Summary
Judgment was denied as premature. On February 10, 2017, [U.S.
Bank] filed a Motion to Strike [Appellants'] jury demand.
[Appellants], now represented by counsel, filed a response to
[U.S. Bank's] Motion to Strike on March 6, 2017. On March
20, 2017, [U.S. Bank's] Motion to Strike was denied. On
June 5, 2017, [U.S. Bank] filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. On July 7, 2017, [Appellants] filed a response to
[U.S. Bank's] Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 22,
2017, [U.S. Bank's] Motion for Summary Judgment was
On August 22, 2017, a jury trial commenced before the
Honorable Kenneth J. Powell Jr. On August 23, 2017, the jury
found by a preponderance of the evidence that[: Appellants]
executed the Note and Mortgage on March 19, 2007,
[Appellants] defaulted under the terms of the subject note by
failing to make monthly mortgage loan payments due on
February 1, 2011, and all subsequent payment, and that [U.S.
Bank], was owed $204, 209.22 plus any additional interest,
advances, fees, and costs which accrue pursuant to the terms
of the mortgage loan. On September 4, 2017, [Appellants]
filed a post-trial motion, which was denied by [the trial
court on] September 14, 2017. On September 21, 2017,
[Appellants'] Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court was
docketed. On September 22, 2017, [the trial court] filed a
Rule 1925(b) order, which required [Appellants] to file a
concise statement of matters complained of on appeal no later
than twenty-one days after the date of the Order.
Amended Trial Court Opinion, 12/7/17, at 1-3.
trial court's Pa.R.A.P 1925(b) order required Appellants
to file a concise statement on or before October 13, 2017.
Amended Trial Court Opinion, 12/7/17, at 3. Appellants failed
to comply until October 29, 2017. Id. at 3-4;
Appellants' Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal, 10/29/17. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the
trial court did not address the merits of Appellants'
issues; rather, it asserted that Appellants waived all issues
on appeal by failing to timely file the court-ordered
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Amended Trial Court Opinion,
12/7/17, at 1, 3-4.
preliminary review of the record in this case, this Court
observed that judgment had not been entered on the docket as
required. Pa.R.A.P. 301, "Requisites for an Appealable
Order," provides that "no order of the court shall
be appealable until it has been entered upon the appropriate
docket in the lower court." Thus, on November 9, 2017,
by per curiam order, we stated, in pertinent part:
Pursuant to this Court's policy, the appellant is
directed to praecipe the trial court Prothonotary to enter
judgment on the decision of the trial court . . . . Upon
compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 301, the notice of appeal
previously filed in this case will be treated as filed after
the entry of judgment. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a).
Order, 11/9/17. Appellants eventually complied, and judgment
was entered on the trial court docket on November 21, 2017.
Amended Trial Court Opinion, 12/7/17, at 3.
January 5, 2018, U.S. Bank filed a Motion to Quash the Appeal
in this Court alleging that Appellants had not timely filed a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Therefore, U.S. Bank averred
that Appellants waived all issues on appeal. Appellants did
not file an answer to U.S. Bank's Motion to Quash the
Appeal. This Court entered the following order: "The
motion to quash this appeal is DENIED without
prejudice to the moving party's right to again
raise this issue . . . in the appellate brief. . . ."
Order, 3/8/18 (emphasis in original). When Appellants filed
their appellate brief, they did not address the untimeliness
of their Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Currently, U.S. Bank
has renewed the issue in its appellate brief. U.S. Bank's