Bank of America v. Hancock, D. (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S19042-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as successor by merger to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Appellee v. : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DALE J. HANCOCK, Appellant : : No. 1848 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered on September 20, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, Civil Division, No. 2012-1993 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2014 Petition to Open the default judgment entered against her and in favor of Loans Servicing, LP, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP. We affirm. The Bank filed a Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure on November 1, 2012. According to the Return of Service, a certified copy of the Complaint was personally handed to Hancock on November 2, 2012, at her residence located at 852 Orphan School Road, a/k/a 9769 SR 106, Harford Township, Pennsylvania. J-S19042-14 On January 31, 2013, the Bank filed a Praecipe for In Rem Judgment for Failure to Answer an Pennsylvania, 18826. The Praecipe also included a Notice of Intent to Enter e Bank entered a default judgment against Hancock. The Bank provided Hancock Notice of the default judgment. The Bank filed two Motions to Reassess Damages. Both Motions Orphan School Road, Kingsley, Pennsylvania and 9769 SR 106, Kingsley, Pennsylvania. The trial court issued rules to show cause why each Motion should not be granted. The trial court granted the first Motion, and amended the judgment, on May 7, 2013. On August 27, 2013, the trial On September 20, 2013, Hancock filed an Emergency Motion to stay the sale of the property, and a Petition to Open the default judgment entered against her. On that same Motion and Petition. Thereafter, Hancock filed the instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. -2- J-S19042-14 Hancock pr Hancock claims that the trial court improperly denied her Petition to Open the default judgment entered against her. Id. at 4. In support, Hancock asserts that she obtained her mortgage through NFM, Inc., d/b/a that time. Id. at 4-5. According to Hancock, an assignment of the mortgage to the Bank was recorded on April 3, 2012. Id. at 4-5. Hancock argues that because NFM was unlicensed, her mortgage was invalid at the time of its origination. Id. at 5. Further, Hancock arg mortgage and note were created under false pretenses, they are void and the alleged assignment is prima facie invalid[,] as a company cannot Id. Hancock additionally argues that she was not present on the date that the Complaint was served and, therefore, service could not have taken place. Id. Hancock also contends that the trial court denied her default judgment, without a proper hearing. Id. Regarding the merits of her Petition to Open the default judgment, and that she is still trying to modify her loan. -3- Id. at 6. According to J-S19042-14 Hancock, she lost her job in late 2010, at which time she sought to refinance her loan. Id. However, the Bank changed case managers four times during d, and that she had to re-send her paperwork for other reasons. Id. we must find either a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law by the Oswald v. WB Pub. Square Assocs., LLC, 80 A.3d 790, 794 (Pa. Super. 2013). promptly file a petition to that effect, must plead a meritorious defense to the claims raised in the complaint, and provide a reasonable excuse for not filing a responsive Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Vanmeter, 67 A.3d 14, 18 (Pa. Super. 2013). The timeliness of a petition to open a judgment is measured from the date that notice of the entry of the default judgment is received. The law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as timely. Instead, the court must consider the length of time between discovery of the entry of the default judgment and the reason for delay. *** In cases where the appellate courts have found a judgment, the period of delay has normally been less than one month. See Duckson v. Wee Wheelers, Inc., 423 Pa.Super. 251, 620 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 1993) -4- J-S19042-14 (one day is timely); Alba v. Urology Associates of Kingston, 409 Pa.Super. 406, 598 A.2d 57 (Pa. Super. 1991) (fourteen days is timely); Fink v. General Accident Ins. Co., 406 Pa. Super. 294, 594 A.2d 345 (Pa.Super. 1991) (period of five days is timely). US Bank N.A., 982 A.2d at 995 (quotation omitted) (finding eighty-two day delay was not timely). See Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2009 PA Super 241, 986 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. 2009) (indicating delay of fourteen days in filing petition to open was timely); Pappas v. Stefan, 451 Pa. 354, 304 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. 1973) (fifty-five day delay was not prompt). Kelly v. Siuma, 34 A.3d 86, 92 (Pa. Super. 2011). However, equitable circumstances exist, a default judgment may be opened regardless of the time that may have elapsed between entry of the judgment and filing Queen City Elec. Supply Co. v. Soltis Elec. Co., 421 A.2d 174, 177 (Pa. 1980). concluded that they lack merit. Trial Court Opinion, 1/8/14, at 2-8. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and affirm on this basis. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/12/2014 -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.