HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-5046 civilEVELYN T. HEFFNER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
KENNETH L. HAMMAKER and :
LINDA D. HAMMAKER, :
Defendants : NO 96-5046 CIVIL
:
and :
:
ROBERT C. EGLEY and AUDREY :
E. EGLEY, :
Defendants
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before HOFFER, P.J. and OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, June 30, 1998, after careful consideration of both parties' briefs
and oral argument held April 15, 1998, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
is granted.
By the Court,
Murrel L. Walters III, Esquire Richard W. Stewart,~ --squire
54 East Main Street Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3851 301 Market Street
For the Plaintiff P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
For the Defendants, Robert C. Egley and
Audrey E. Egley
EVELYN T. HEFFNER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V, :
,
KENNETH L. HAMMAKER and :
LINDA D. HAMMAKER, :
Defendants : NO. 96-5046 CIVIL
:
and :
:
ROBERT C. EGLEY and AUDREY :
E. EGLEY, :
Defendants :
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before HOFFER, P.J. and OLER, J.
OPINION
This action arose from an unsatisfied mortgage owed the Plaintiff, Mrs.
Evelyn T. Heffner. In 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Heffner sold a Shiremanstown
apartment building to the Hammakers. As part of the purchase price, the
Hammakers executed a $50,000 mortgage on their personal residence, located in
Hampden Township, in favor of the Heffners. The Hammakers sold their home to
the Egleys in 1988. The mortgage in favor of the Heffners was overlooked. The
Hammakers continued to make payments to the Heffners until 1991. At this point,
the health of Mr. Heffner, who managed the couple's finances, seriously declined.
Mr. Heffner died in 1995.
This mortgage foreclosure action was filed by Plaintiff, Mrs. Heffner,
September 11, 1996, when she discovered that the mortgage had not been paid
96-5046 CIVIL TERM
in full by the Hammakers. Plaintiff was unable to effectuate service of the
complaint on the Hammakers and the court ultimately authorized service by
publication on July 3, 1997. The Hammakers never responded. A default
judgment was entered against the Hammakers August 20, 1997.
The Egleys responded to Plaintiff's complaint by filing an answer October 21,
1996. Plaintiff filed the motion of summary judgment, currently at issue, September
9, 1997. The Egleys answered the motion March 10, 1998, and Plaintiff listed the
case for argument held April 15, 1998.
Discussion
Motions for summary judgment are governed by PA. R. C. P. 1035.2 which
provides:
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such
time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may
move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a
matter of law
(1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any
material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of
action or defense which could be established by
additional discovery or expert report, or
(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to
the motion, including the production of expert reports, an
adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial
has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the
cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would
require the issues to be submitted to a jury.
Pa. R. C. P. 1035.2. In deciding a motion of summary judgment, the court will
2
96-5046 CIVIL TERM
"view the record in the light most favorable to the non moving party, and all doubts
as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the
moving party." Ertel v. Patriot News Co., 544 Pa. 93, 98-99, 674 A.2d 1038, 1041
(1996).
The law concerning mortgages is clear. An instrument under seal, such as
a mortgage, has a twenty year statute of limitations. 42 Pa. PA. C.S.A. Section
5529(a). A subsequent purchaser of property subject to a mortgage is responsible
for the satisfaction of the mortgage. See Bank of Pennsylvania v. G/N Enterprises,
316 Pa. Super. 367, 463 A.2d 4 (1983).
When the property which is subject to the mortgage [had
been] transferred without payment of the mortgage, the
property in the hands of the transferee continues to be
security for the performance of the obligation, and for any
default the mortgagee may seize and sell the property in
the hands of the transferee.
Bank of Pennsylvania v. G/N Enterprises, 316 Pa. Super. 367, 372, 463 A.2d 4,
6-7 (1983) (citations omitted).
In the case at bar, the existence of a mortgage on the home now owned by
the Egleys, payable to Plaintiff, is undisputed. Although the Egleys purchased the
property without discovering the mortgage, the law is clear that they are
responsible for its satisfaction. Plaintiff properly filed this action within the
applicable twenty year statute of limitations. No genuine issues of material fact
remain in dispute, therefore Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
3