The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-3280 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR NEW : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN : PENNSYLVANIA TRUST, SERIES 2003-4 ASSET BACKED : PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : v. : : APRIL YOUNG, DWAYNE G. YOUNG : No. 13-3280 Civil Term a/k/a DUWAYNE G. YOUNG AND : OCCUPANTS, : Defendants. : IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, P.J., EBERT, J., AND PECK, J. OPINION and ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on behalf of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2003-4 Asset Backed Pass- Through Certificates (hereinafter “Deutsche Bank”), which seeks ejectment against the Defendants, April Young, Dwayne G. Young a/k/a Duwayne G .Young, and Occupants (hereinafter “the Youngs”). Deutsche Bank maintains that it has a right to immediate possession of the property and that the New Matter of the Defendants is an improper collateral attack on a valid sheriff’s sale. This case began when Deutsche Bank filed a Complaint in Ejectment on June 7, 2013. (Compl. in Ejectment, filed Jun. 7, 2013). In their Complaint, Deutsche Bank averred that they acquired title to the premises known as 209 Liberty Drive, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17527 (hereinafter “Property”) from a Sheriff’s Sale conducted by the Sheriff of Cumberland County on December 5, 2012. (Compl. in Ejectment, ¶ 1). The Sheriff’s Deed was executed February 4, 2013. (Compl. in Ejectment, Ex. A). The Deed was then recorded with the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds on March 5, 2013. (Compl. in Ejectment, A). Deutsche Bank further avers that the Youngs are in possession of the Property and that no landlord tenant relationship exists between Deutsche Bank and the Youngs. (Compl. in Ejectment, ¶ ¶ 3, 7). The Youngs filed an Answer to Complaint in Ejectment that contained a New Matter. (Answer Comp. Ejectment, filed Jun. 28, 2013). In their Answer, the Youngs deny almost all the averments in the Complaint. However, in doing so, and in their New Matter, the Youngs contest the proceedings and events that preceded the Sheriff’s Sale. For example; 1. DENIED The Plaintiff may have received the premises…but they did not have right to the property….They would not have gotten judgment if not for Plaintiff Attorney putting a stop to any and all refinancing. 2. DENIED They may have acquired said property at sheriff sale but did not do so in a legal manner. …. 5. DENIED Defendants have every right to have possession to the premises because of the way the Plaintiffs go the Sheriff sale. 6. DENIED If the Plaintiffs would have cooperated with Lenders they would have gotten paid for property instead of getting it in Sheriff sale. …. 13. The Plaintiffs would not have gotten the property…if not for trickery and lies. Giving wrong pay-off amounts or not settling disputes with the Defendants…. 14. The said property should be returned to APRIL YOUNG AND DUWAYNE YOUNG on the bases that they tried to pay for the property and NEW CENTURY WOULD NOT EXCEPT PAYMENT IN FULL. (Answer Comp. Ejectment, ¶¶ 1,2,5,6,13,14) (emphasis in original). After the Answer to Complaint in Ejectment, Deutsche Bank filed Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ New Matter. (Pl.’s Reply to Defs.’ New Matter, filed Jul. 17, 2013). The Youngs then filed Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Matter. (Defs.’ Reply Pl.’s Matter, filed Jul. 29, 2013). On that same day, Deutsche Bank filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Pl.’s 2 Mot. Summ. J., filed Jul. 29, 2013). Deutsche Bank submitted a brief and argument was held on September 27, 2013. We offer a condensed description of the proceedings that lead up to the Sheriff’s Sale. On September 29, 2004, New Century Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2003-4 Asset Backed Pass- Through Certificates (hereinafter “New Century”) filed a Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure against the Youngs docketed to 4893 Civil of 2004. (Compl. Foreclosure., filed Sept. 29, 2004). Then counsel, filed Defendant’s Answer and New Matter on behalf of the Youngs. (Def.’s Answer New Matter, filed Nov. 3, 2004). During the litigation, this court denied two requests for summary judgment filed by New Century. (Order, filed Feb. 7, 2005; Order, filed Sept. 8, 2005). Eventually, an Order was entered recognizing a valid settlement agreement between the parties, providing that, if specific funds were paid by the Youngs to New Century within thirty days, New Century would enter a mortgage satisfaction; otherwise, judgment in mortgage foreclosure would be granted against the Youngs. (Order, filed Dec. 5, 2006). After a hearing on February 21, 2007, an Order was filed modifying the Court’s previous December 5, 2006 Order so that the Youngs would have even more time, until March 21, 2007, to tender the required funds. (Order, filed Feb. 21, 2007). To address allegations raised by the Youngs, the February 21, 2007 Order further directed New Century to cooperate with a mortgage broker so that the Youngs could secure other financing. (Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Proceedings before Judge Guido, Feb 21, 2007). Nevertheless, the Youngs filed a “Complaint” that the Court treated as a Motion to Stay the Sheriff’s Sale, asserting that they were unable to procure the needed funds because of New Century’s interference. (Complaint, filed Mar. 19, 2007). After the Court gave the Youngs a hearing, their motion was denied. (Order, May 5, 2007). The Youngs were never able to obtain the needed financing and a Petition to Strike or Open Judgment was denied. 3 (Order, filed Nov. 30, 2012). Ultimately, a Sheriff’s Sale was held where the Property was conveyed to Deutsche Bank which led to the current action. Pursuant to Rule 1035.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may grant summary judgment after the relevant pleadings are closed and whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense that could be established by any additional discovery or expert report, or, 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; Estate of Borst v. Edward Stover Sr. Testamentary Trust, 30 A.3d 1207, 1210 (Pa. Super. 2011). The purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate cases prior to trial where a party cannot make out a claim or defense after the relevant discovery has been completed. Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829, 833 (Pa. Super. 2000). Summary judgment shall be granted whenever “the material facts are undisputed,” or the facts are insufficient “to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense.” McCarthy v. Dan Lepore & Sons Co., 724 A.2d 938, 940 (Pa. Super. 1998). Furthermore, summary judgment is proper when “the uncontroverted allegations in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions of record, and submitted affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. IRPC, Inc., 904 A.2d 912, 915 (Pa. Super. 2006). Rule 1035.3(a) goes on to state, “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (e), the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings but must file a response within thirty days after service of the motion….” Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3. Finally, a trial court’s entry 4 of summary judgment will not be overturned absent an error of law or a clear abuse of discretion. McCain v. Pennbank, 549 A.2d 1311, 1313 (Pa. Super. 1988). “Ejectment is an action filed by a plaintiff who does not possess the land but has the right to possess it, against a defendant who has actual possession.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Long, 934 A.2d 76, 78 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “Ejectment, being a possessory action, can be maintained if the plaintiff has a right to immediate possession with the concomitant right to demand that the defendant vacate the land.” Moore v. Duran, 687 A.2d 822, 827 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted). An ejectment action is a proceeding collateral to that under which the land was sold, and, normally, an attack on a sheriff's sale cannot be made in a collateral proceeding. Dime Sav. Bank, FSB v. Greene, 813 A.2d 893, 895 (Pa. Super. 2002). (citations omitted). Here, the Youngs do not challenge the ejectment proceeding itself. In fact, they do not even allege that the underlying judgment is void. Instead, they take issue with the actions of New Century that lead up to the judgment. Concerns regarding those actions properly belonged in the mortgage foreclosure action. As the above recital demonstrates, the Court extensively heard the contentions of the Youngs and gave them not only every benefit of the doubt, but more than ample time to save their home. Moreover, the Youngs did not file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, nor did they file a brief for argument. While we are considerate of the unfortunate circumstance which the Youngs now face, there is no relief to be granted at this stage. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and after oral argument, heard September 27, 2013, the Motion for 5 Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Defendants, April Young, Dwayne G. Young a/k/a Duwayne G. Young, and Occupants are ordered to vacate the premises, 290 Liberty Drive, Shippensburg, PA 17253 within 30 days of this Order. It is further ordered and decreed that all personal property in or on the property after 30 days following the date of this Order shall be deemed abandoned and Plaintiff may dispose of such property as it sees fit without any liability thereof. BY THE COURT, ___________________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. Joseph I. Foley, Esquire 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19109 For the Plaintiff Duwayne & April Young 290 Liberty Drive Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendant 6 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR NEW : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN : PENNSYLVANIA TRUST, SERIES 2003-4 ASSET BACKED : PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : v. : : APRIL YOUNG, DWAYNE G. YOUNG : No. 13-3280 Civil Term a/k/a DUWAYNE G. YOUNG AND : OCCUPANTS, : Defendants. : IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, P.J., EBERT, J., AND PECK, J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and after oral argument, heard September 27, 2013, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Defendants, April Young, Dwayne G. Young a/k/a Duwayne G. Young, and Occupants are ordered to vacate the premises, 290 Liberty Drive, Shippensburg, PA 17253 within 30 days of this Order. It is further ordered and decreed that all personal property in or on the property after 30 days following the date of this Order shall be deemed abandoned and Plaintiff may dispose of such property as it sees fit without any liability thereof. BY THE COURT, ___________________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. Joseph I. Foley, Esquire 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19109 For the Plaintiff Duwayne & April Young 290 Liberty Drive Shippensburg, PA 17257 Defendants