J. S14032/20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
(TRUSTEE FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA : PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY) :
:
v. :
:
JOE HOLMES, : No. 2289 EDA 2019
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Dated June 20, 2019,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No. 150802640
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 28, 2020
Joe Holmes (“Homeowner”) appeals pro se1 from the June 20, 2019
order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which
denied Homeowner’s miscellaneous motion for relief. We affirm.
The relevant procedural history, as gleaned from the certified record and
the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, is as follows: On August 21, 2015,
U.S. Bank National Association (Trustee for the Pennsylvania Housing Finance
Agency) (“Bank”) filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure against
Homeowner. On November 24, 2015, Homeowner filed an answer.
Thereafter, on March 23, 2017, Bank filed a motion for summary judgment.
1 The record reflects that Homeowner also proceeded pro se in the trial court.
J. S14032/20
Homeowner failed to file a response. On April 26, 2017, the trial court granted
Bank’s motion and ordered Homeowner’s property be sold at sheriff’s sale.2
Homeowner did not appeal. Rather, on April 28, 2017, Homeowner filed a
motion for reconsideration,3 which was denied by the trial court on May 30,
2017. Homeowner then appealed. On September 6, 2017, this court quashed
Homeowner’s appeal as untimely. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n. (Trustee for
the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency) v. Holmes, No. 1978 EDA
2017, per curiam order (Pa.Super. filed September 6, 2017). On
September 12, 2017, Homeowner’s property was sold at sheriff’s sale. The
sheriff delivered the deed on October 27, 2017. Homeowner did not seek to
set aside the sheriff’s sale.
On February 26, 2018, Homeowner filed a “petition to vacate & void
[ab initio] the civil procedural default summary judgment.” (Capitalization
omitted.) The motion was denied by the trial court on April 3, 2018.
Homeowner did not appeal. On May 17, 2019, Homeowner filed a
“miscellaneous motion for relief from sheriff’s sale and deed, and to vacate
2 The trial court assessed damages at $197,581.34 plus interest.
3Although Homeowner titled his filing a “motion for reconsideration,” a review
of the motion reveals that Homeowner actually sought permission to file an
untimely response to Bank’s motion for summary judgment, objected to the
complaint in mortgage foreclosure, and included a brief in support of those
objections.
-2-
J. S14032/20
praecipe of writ and summary judgment.”4 (Capitalization omitted.) The trial
court denied this motion on June 20, 2019. Homeowner timely appealed. The
trial court did not order Homeowner to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court,
however, filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 20, 2019.
Homeowner raises the following issues:
1. Were [a]ppellant’s rights violated by the trial
court upon ignoring appellant’s claim that the
mortgage loan in dispute is void as to appellant
who was and remains illiterate and incompetent
upon his execution of the mortgage loan and
modification instruments in dispute?
2. Were [a]ppellant’s procedural due process
rights under Pa.R.Civ.P. 2002 violated because
[a]ppellee was never a real party in interest?
3. Were [a]ppellant’s rights under Pennsylvania’s
uniform commercial code violated upon the note
instrument submitted in support of summary
judgment failing to display an [e]ndorsement
paid to the order of [a]ppellee or in blank
pursuant to 13 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3204 and 3205
(respectively)?
4. Were [a]ppellant’s rights under sections 6(b)
and 9(d) of the note [and] mortgage in dispute
violated and denied upon [a]ppellee
commencing the foreclosure action below
without complying with sections 6(b) and 9(d)
of the note [and] mortgage (respectively) and
as required by 24 [C.F.R.] §§ 203.604,
203.605, and 203.606?
4The motion’s title further states: “and dismissal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 5504(B), 5505 and Pa.R.C.P. 3132, 227.1, 208.3, and the court’s inherent
power.” (Capitalization omitted.)
-3-
J. S14032/20
5. Were [a]ppellant’s due process rights violated
upon [a]ttorneys KLM as officers of the court
engaging in fraud upon the court, tampering
with and fabricating evidence?
Appellant’s brief at 3-4.
The trial court determined that Homeowner’s “miscellaneous motion,”
filed May 17, 2019, was in the nature of a
petition to (1) strike and/or open the April 26, 2017
order granting summary judgment in favor of Bank
and against Homeowner; (2) vacate the June 7, 2017
writ of execution; and (3) set aside the Sheriff's sale
and deed (the “petition”).
Trial court opinion, 8/20/19 at 1 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
The trial court determined that its order of April 26, 2017, granting
Bank’s motion for summary judgment became a final order on May 26, 2017,
from which Homeowner failed to timely appeal. (Id. at 3.) Further, the trial
court found Homeowner failed to demonstrate “extrinsic fraud, lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, a fatal defect apparent on the face of the
record or some other evidence of extraordinary cause justifying intervention
by the court.” Id. at 2-3 (numbers omitted), citing Manufacturers and
Traders Trust Co. v. Greenville Gastroenterology, SC, 108 A.3d 913,
918-919 (Pa.Super. 2015).
With respect to the sheriff’s sale and deed, the trial court found
Homeowner’s “petition” was untimely as it was not filed until more than
one and one-half years after the sheriff’s deed was delivered and Homeowner
did not establish that the deed was based on fraud or lack of authority to make
-4-
J. S14032/20
the sale. See Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Ralich, 982 A.2d
77, 80 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 992 A.2d 889 (Pa. 2010).
After careful review, we find that the trial court’s August 20, 2019
Rule 1925(a) opinion ably and comprehensively disposes of all issues raised
on appeal. The trial court’s findings are amply supported by the record, and
its conclusions are without legal error. We, therefore, affirm on the basis of
that opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
JosephD.Seletyn,Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/28/2020
-5-
U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Holmes, J.
Combined Opinion