United States Of America v. Robinson

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM re pltf's MOTION for Summary Judgment 7 filed by United States Of America (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 02/28/14. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v.
DENA R. ROBINSON f/k/a
DENA R. ROWLES,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:13-CV-2115

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

MEMORANDUM
In this mortgage foreclosure action, Plaintiff United States of America,
on behalf of its agency, the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing
Service, has sued Defendant to recover amounts due and owing under a note and
mortgage. Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
(Doc. 7.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.
I.

Background
On March 22, 2002, Defendant secured a loan from Plaintiff in the

amount of $107,400.00 pursuant to Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C. §
1471. (Doc. 1, ¶ 3; Doc. 6, ¶ 3.) As security for the loan, Defendant conveyed a real
estate mortgage for a property located at 1238 Hillendale Road in Chambersberg,
Pennsylvania, which was recorded on April 1, 2002, with the Office of the Recorder
of Deeds for Franklin County, Pennsylvania, in Book 1851 page 621. (Doc. 1, ¶ 5;
Doc. 6, ¶ 5.) On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she was in
monetary default as a result of Defendant’s failure to pay monthly installments on
the loan, and, as a result, Plaintiff had elected to accelerate Defendant’s
indebtedness. (See Doc. 8-1; see also Doc. 1, ¶¶ 9, 11; Doc. 6, ¶¶ 9, 11 (requesting
the court allow Defendant to refinance, but not denying corresponding factual

allegations in complaint.) Through the admissions contained in her answer,
Defendant has not disputed the validity of the loan and mortgage, the fact of her
default, or the amount of default.1 (Doc. 6.)
II.

Legal Standard
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers

to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 799, 805-06 (3d Cir. 2000); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“Once the moving party points to evidence demonstrating no issue of material fact
exists, the non-moving party has the duty to set forth specific facts showing that a
genuine issue of material fact exists and that a reasonable factfinder could rule in its
favor.” Marcavage v. Borough of Lansdowne, PA, 493 F. App’x 301, 304-05 (3d
Cir. 2012) (quoting Azur v. Chase Bank, USA, Nat’l Ass’n, 601 F.3d 212, 216 (3d
Cir. 2010)). A factual dispute is deemed genuine if the evidence is such that a “jury
could reasonably find for the [non-movant].” Jakimas v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.,
485 F.3d 770, 777 (3d Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). In reviewing the evidence, the court
may not weigh the evidence and must give the nonmoving party the benefit of all
reasonable inferences. Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 210 (3d Cir. 2010); Bray v.
Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986, 989 (3d Cir. 1997).

The time for responding to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has passed, and
Defendant has failed to file any response. Although the court, in interest to the pro se litigant, considered
issuing an order directing Defendant to show cause why the motion for summary judgment should not be
granted, it determined that doing so would be futile, as Defendant has admitted the material facts set
forth in Plaintiff’s complaint. This memorandum is issued in accordance with the dictates of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), requiring the court to set forth the reasons for granting the motion.
1

2

III.

Discussion
“In a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff must demonstrate the

existence of an obligation secured by a mortgage, and a default on that obligation.”
Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n v. Scranton Center Holdings, LP, Civ. No. 10-cv-1251,
2012 WL 1965415, *2 (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2012) (quoting Chemical Bank v.
Dippolito, 897 F. Supp. 221, 224 (E.D. Pa. 1995)); see also United States v. Asken,
Civ. No. 01-cv-0026, 2002 WL 32175416 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2002) (granting the
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action following
the defendants’ default on a loan granted pursuant to Title V of the Housing Act of
1949). Where a mortgagor admits that it is in default on its obligations under the
mortgage, or where there is no dispute that the mortgagor has failed to pay its
obligations under the mortgage and the recorded mortgage is in a specified amount,
then summary judgment is appropriate. See Wilson v. Parisi, 549 F. Supp. 2d 637,
655 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (quoting Cunningham v. McWilliams, 714 A.2d 1054, 1057
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)).
Application of these standards to the case before the court is
straightforward. Defendant admits that she signed the Note and the Mortgage (Doc.
1, ¶¶ 3-4; Doc. 6, ¶¶ 3-4.) There is no reasonable dispute regarding the terms of
either the Note or the Mortgage. (See generally Doc. 6) It is equally clear that the
Mortgage was properly recorded with the Recorder of Deeds for Franklin County,
Pennsylvania, on April 1, 2002, and that Plaintiff is the owner and holder of the
Note and Mortgage. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 5-6; Doc. 6, ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendant admits that the
amount due and owing to Plaintiff on the Note and Mortgage is $132,393.12. (Doc.
1, ¶ 10.) Thus, the undisputed material facts shows the existence of an obligation
3

secured by a mortgage and the default on that obligation. Accordingly, summary
judgment in Plaintiff’s favor is appropriate.
IV.

Conclusion
In this matter, the undisputed facts show that: Plaintiff loaned

$107,400.00 to Defendant, Defendant conveyed a mortgage to Plaintiff as security
for the loan, and Defendant defaulted on that loan, leaving an unpaid principal
balance of $95,267.87, subject to an agreed upon interest rate and fees. Therefore,
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and its motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 7) will be granted.
An appropriate order will issue.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: February 28, 2014.

4