J-A20010-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 FANNIE MAE A/K/A FEDERAL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NATIONAL MORTGAGE : PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION : : : v. : : : LISA FERRERI A/K/A LISA A. : No. 2563 EDA 2023 FERRERI AND ANY AND ALL : CURRENT OCCUPANTS : : : APPEAL OF: LISA FERRERI A/K/A : LISA A. FERRERI Appeal from the Order Entered August 31, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2019-18305

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED APRIL 24, 2025 Lisa Ferreri, a/k/a Lisa A. Ferreri, appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery Country, granting summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae, a/k/a Federal National Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae), and denying Ferreri’s motion for summary judgment and motion to compel discovery in this ejectment action. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae and properly denied J-A20010-24

Ferreri’s motions.1 Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand to the trial court for the imposition of attorneys’ fees and costs against Ferreri. See Pa.R.A.P. 2744.

We adopt the history of the case and facts as set forth by the trial court.

See Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/24, at 1-4. In summary, the present ejectment action initiated by Fannie Mae on July 19, 2019 arises from a prior mortgage foreclosure action (Foreclosure Case) decided against Ferreri. 2 On February 3, 2023, Fannie Mae filed a motion for summary judgment in the instant case.

On May 25, 2023, Ferreri filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that Wells Fargo had lacked standing to sue in the Foreclosure Case and that the resulting judgment and sheriff’s sale were fraudulent and, therefore, void. ____________________________________________

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits demonstrate that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. In determining whether to grant summary judgment, a trial court must resolve all doubts against the moving party and examine the record in a light most favorable to the non- moving party. Merriweather v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 684 A.2d at 140. Summary judgment may only be granted in cases where it is clear and free from doubt that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. On January 15, 2015, the Honorable R. Stephen Barrett granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment in the Foreclosure Case and entered judgment in the mortgage foreclosure against Ferreri. Ferreri appealed this decision, and this Court affirmed the order granting summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ferreri, 403 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 15, 2016) (unpublished memorandum decision).

-2- J-A20010-24

On August 31, 2023, the trial court granted Fannie Mae’s motion for summary judgment and denied Ferreri’s motion to compel discovery, filed on April 14, 2022, which sought additional discovery relating to the underlying mortgage loan. Ferreri filed a timely notice of appeal and, on October 12, 2023, filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On January 11, 2024, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Ferreri raises the following four issues for our review:

[1.] Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its discretion by failing to find that the trial court in the underlying foreclosure action lacked subject matter jurisdiction rendering the foreclosure judgment void?

[2.] Did the trial court commit an error or law and abuse its discretion when it failed to hold the foreclosure judgment was procured through fraud and is therefore void?

[3.] Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its discretion when it held that Ferreri is collaterally estopped from asserting her claims?

[4.] Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse its discretion by not allowing Ferreri to complete discovery related to Fannie Mae’s motion for summary judgment?

Appellant’s Brief, at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

When an ejectment action is brought by the purchaser of a title obtained as a result of a sheriff’s sale in a mortgage foreclosure, the grounds on which

-3- J-A20010-24

the underlying judgment of foreclosure can be collaterally attacked are strictly limited.

Initially, we note that an attack on a sheriff’s sale usually cannot be made in a collateral proceeding. An ejectment action is a proceeding collateral to that under which the land was sold. Thus, where it is claimed that the underlying default judgment is merely voidable, that claim will not be entertained because such a judgment cannot be reached collaterally. However, in an ejectment action[,] it may be alleged that the judgment is void. A void decree can be attacked at any time. Where a judgment is void, the sheriff’s sale [that] follows is a nullity. A judgment is void when the court had no jurisdiction over the parties, or the subject matter, or the court had no power or authority to render the particular judgment. A judgment [that] is void cannot support an ejectment action and may be asserted as a defense in the ejectment proceeding.

Dime Savings Bank, FSB v. Greene, 813 A.2d 893, 895 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations omitted).

The basis of Ferreri’s argument against the present ejectment action is that the foreclosure judgment against her was obtained by fraud because Wells Fargo lacked standing to sue in the Foreclosure Case. Therefore, Ferreri contends the judgment against her is void and the subsequent sheriff’s sale is a nullity. This is the same argument of fraud that Ferreri made in the Foreclosure Case. Here, Ferreri reasserts this argument by claiming that new evidence of fraud has been uncovered after the conclusion of the Foreclosure Case. To support that argument, Ferreri presents evidence that Wells Fargo sold her loan to Fannie Mae two years before it filed the Foreclosure Case.

See Appellant’s Brief, at 37. That assertion was already made by Ferreri in the Foreclosure Case and both the trial court and this Court deemed that -4- J-A20010-24

insufficient to prevent foreclosure. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ferreri, EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 15, 2016), at 9 (unpublished memorandum decision). The only difference in Ferreri’s current version of the claim is a change in the timeline in which the sale occurred, which adds nothing of substance. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/24, at 7. Second, Ferreri cites evidence that Wells Fargo did not have physical possession of the promissory note but rather the note was held by a “custodian” of Fannie Mae.

See Appellant’s Brief, at 38. Likewise, this evidence does not establish fraud; in fact, Wells Fargo specifically alleged in the Foreclosure Case that it “directly or through an agent, has possession of the Promissory Note.” See Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/24, at 7 (emphasis in original). This “new” evidence does not substantially change the argument of fraud previously asserted in the Foreclosure Case.

Furthermore, Ferreri’s claims regarding lack of standing and fraud were previously argued and rejected in the underlying Foreclosure Case by both the trial court and this Court.3 Therefore, Ferreri is precluded from relitigating the issues under the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. As this Court has explained: The doctrine of collateral estoppel . . . operates to prevent a question of law or an issue of fact [that] has once been litigated ____________________________________________

-5- J-A20010-24

and adjudicated finally in a court of competent jurisdiction from being relitigated in a subsequent suit. Unlike res judicata, there is no requirement that there be an identity of parties between the two actions to invoke the bar[.] [A] plea of collateral estoppel is valid if[:] 1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented in the later action, 2) there was a final judgment on the merits, 3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication, and 4) the party against whom it is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the question in a prior action.

Day v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 464 A.2d 1313, 1318-19 (Pa. Super. 1983) (citations omitted).

Here, Ferreri’s argument that Wells Fargo lacked standing to sue for foreclosure is the exact argument she made in the Foreclosure Case. There was a final judgment in the Foreclosure Case that was affirmed on appeal.

Ferreri was the Defendant in both cases. Ferreri had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior case. Additionally, this Court agrees with the trial court’s rejection of Ferreri’s assertion that the denial of her defense in the Foreclosure Case is not preclusive because it was obtained by fraud. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/24, at 6. Simply asserting the claim of fraud is not enough to avoid preclusion. Even considering the “new” evidence discussed above, Ferreri has failed to prove the foreclosure judgment was the product of fraud.

Lastly, Ferreri argues that the trial court incorrectly precluded her from completing discovery.

A trial court is not required to grant a party additional time for discovery before ruling on a summary judgment motion where the parties have already had a reasonable time for discovery and the -6- J-A20010-24

party opposing summary judgment has not demonstrated that it was prevented from timely completing the necessary discovery.

Barrell v. Streamlight, Inc., 222 A.3d 1137, 1142 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2019), citing Ft. Cherry Sch. Dist. v. Gedman, 894 A.2d 135, 140 (Pa. Super. 2006).

As correctly opined by the trial court, Ferreri had more than three years to take discovery in this case, which does not even include the prior five years of proceedings in the Foreclosure Case. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/24, at 14. Clearly, Ferreri had ample time for discovery before the trial court issued its summary judgment decision.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the well-reasoned opinion by the Honorable Jeffrey S. Saltz thoroughly and properly disposes all of Ferreri’s issues on appeal, and we affirm on the basis of that opinion. The parties are directed to attach a copy of the opinion in the event of further proceedings.

As a separate and additional matter, this Court deems appropriate the imposition of attorneys’ fees against Ferreri, pursuant to Rule 2744, on the grounds that this appeal is frivolous. Rule 2744 provides for the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees when this Court “determines that an appeal is frivolous or taken solely for delay or that the conduct of the participant against

-7- J-A20010-24

whom costs are to be imposed is dilatory, obdurate[,] or vexatious.” 4 Pa.R.A.P. 2744.

[M]ultiple appeals, taken for the purpose of delay, which focus on issues that have already been resolved, or which present arguments running counter to well[-]settled rules of law will be deemed “frivolous” by this [C]ourt. Such appeals are the proper subject for sanctions under Rule 2744. . . [A]n appeal is considered “frivolous” and warrants the award of attorney fees if, either as a matter of fact or law, the appellant’s contentions have no likelihood of success. Richland School District v. Richland Education Association, [] 556 A.2d 531[, 553] ([Pa. Cmwlth.]

1989).”

Murphy v. Murphy, 599 A.2d 647, 654 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citations omitted).

The underlying Foreclosure Case began in January 2009, when Ferreri defaulted on her mortgage of slightly less than three years. See Fannie Mae Summary Judgment Motion, 2/3/23, at 3-4, 37. Since then, including the present appeal, Ferreri has appealed to this Court three times on the issue of the mortgage foreclosure. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ferreri, 199 A.3d 892 (Pa. Super. 2018); id., No. 403 EDA 2015, (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 15, 2016) (unpublished memorandum decision). This Court understands that this ejectment action was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and not due to the fault of either party. However, between the present ejectment case and the underlying Foreclosure Case, Ferreri has been litigating not only the same issue for more than 15 years, but the same rejected arguments of fraud as ____________________________________________

See Wallace v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 199 A.3d 1249, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2018).

-8- J-A20010-24

well. Ferreri argues that “she is entitled to pursue any and all claims she has against the financial institutions who came before the courts with unclean hands.” See Appellant’s Brief, at 9. While she has pursued “any and all claims,” Ferreri has brought no new material evidence to this appeal and, instead, has continued to cite the same argument of fraud to attack the underlying foreclosure judgment.

In the Foreclosure Case, Ferreri “filed her response admitting that she had executed the note and mortgage. . . [and] that she was in default.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ferreri, 403 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 15, 2016) at 2 (unpublished memorandum decision). For each delay resulting from the mortgage foreclosure, the sheriff’s sale, and now the ejectment action, Ferreri has continued to live on the premises essentially for free. Those delays are the direct result of the multiple appeals brought by Ferreri to relitigate the same issue with nothing of substance added to the record facts. Based on the foregoing, we find this appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and remand this matter back to the trial court, pursuant to Rule 2744, for the purpose of determining the appropriate amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded to Fannie Mae.

Order affirmed. Case remanded for the imposition of attorneys’ fees and costs. Jurisdiction relinquished.

-9- J-A20010-24

Date: 4/24/2025

- 10 - Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. Circulated 03/28/2025 2019-18305-0095 02:28 Page Opinion, PM 1 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

IN IN THE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — LAW CIVIL ACTION LAW FANNIE FANNIE MAE MAE A/K/A A/K/A FEDERAL FEDERAL NATIONAL NATIONAL © : No, No. 2019-18305 2019-18305 MORTGAGE MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION : Superior Superior Court Court No. No. 2563 2563 EDA EDA 2023 2023 VS, VS.

LISA LISA FERRER], FERRERI, A/K/A A/K/A LISA LISA A.

A. FERRERI FERRERI AND/OR AND/OR ANY ANY AND AND ALL ALL CURRENT CURRENT OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OPINION OPINION SALTZ, SALTZ, J.J. January January 11, 1I, 2024 2024 LI. HISTORY HISTORY OF OF THE THE CASE CASE Defendant Defendant Lisa Lisa Ferreri Ferreri lost lost ownership ownership ofof her her residence residence inin Lower Lower Merion Merion Township Township asas aa result result of of aa judgment judgment of of mortgage mortgage foreclosure foreclosure and and Sheriff's Sheriffs sale. sale. During During the the course course of of the the mortgage mortgage foreclosure foreclosure proceedings, proceedings, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri repeatedly repeatedly asserted asserted that that foreclosure foreclosure was was not not proper proper because because the the plaintiff plaintiff bank bank lacked lacked standing standing toto sue. sue. ‘Those 'Those assertions assertions were were consistently consistently rejected rejected byby this this Court Court and, and, onon appeal, appeal, byby the the Superior Superior Court.

Court. Following Following the the foreclosure foreclosure sale, sale, Ms. Ms. Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/1 1/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

Ferreri Ferreri failed failed toto vacate vacate the the premises, premises, and and Fannie Fannie Mae Mae a/k/a a/k/a Federal Federal National National Mortgage Mortgage Corporation, Corporation, the the grantee grantee under under the the Sheriffs Sheriffs Deed, Deed, brought brought the the present present action action inin ejectment ejectment toto obtain obtain possession. possession. Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreris principal principal defense defense toto ejectment ejectment was, was, once once again, again, that that the the plaintiff plaintiff inin the the foreclosure foreclosure proceedings proceedings lacked lacked standing standing toto sue sue and and that that the the foreclosure foreclosure judgment judgment was was therefore therefore obtained obtained byby fraud. fraud. Because Because this this contention contention had had already already been been repeatedly repeatedly rejected rejected inin the the foreclosure foreclosure case case after after aa full full and and fair fair opportunity opportunity toto present present it,it, this this Court Court granted granted summary summary judgment judgment inin favor favor ofof Fannie Fannie Mae Mae and and awarded awarded aajudgment judgment for for possession. possession.

RULE RULE 236 NOTICE NOTICE PROVIDED PROVIDED ON ON 01/11/2024 01/11/2024 Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. 2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 2 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

A.

A. The The Prior Prior Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case InIn 2006, 2006, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri obtained obtained the the subject subject mortgage mortgage loan loan from from Wachovia Wachovia Bank, Bank, National National Association Association (“Wachovia”), ("Wachovia"), secured secured by by aa Mortgage Mortgage on on her her residence residence inin Lower Lower Merion Merion Township.

Township.

The The loan loan fell fell into into default, default, and and on on December December 11, 11, 2009, 2009, Wachovia Wachovia commenced commenced an an action action inin mortgage mortgage foreclosure foreclosure inin this this Court, Court, atat No. No. 2009-42684 2009-42684 (“the ("the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case”), Case"), On On April April 14, 14, 2014, 2014, pursuant pursuant toto Praecipe Praecipe filed filed by by counsel counsel for for Wachovia, Wachovia, Wells Wells Fargo Fargo Bank, Bank, N.A.

N.A. (“Wells ("Wells Fargo”), Fargo"), the the successor successor by by merger merger toto Wachovia, Wachovia, was was substituted substituted asas the the plaintiff. plaintiff. On On July July 3,3, 2014, 2014, Wells Wells Fargo Fargo filed filed the the Plaintiff's Plaintiffs Motion Motion for for Summary Summary Judgment.

Judgment. After After extensive extensive briefing briefing and and oral oral argument, argument, the the Court, Court, by by the the Honorable Honorable R.R. Stephen Stephen Barrett, Barrett, issued issued anan Order Order dated dated January January 1515,4 2015, 2015, granting granting Wells Wells Fargo’s Fargo's Motion Motion and andentering entering judgment judgment inin mortgage mortgage foreclosure foreclosure against against Ms. Ms. Ferreri. On Ferreri. January 26, On January Ms. Ferreri 2015, Ms. 26, 2015, Motion for filed aa Motion Ferreri filed for Reconsideration.

Reconsideration.

February 9,9, 2015, On February On awaiting aa ruling without awaiting 2015, without her Motion ruling onon her Reconsideration, Ms. for Reconsideration, Motion for Ms. Ferreri Ferreri filed filed aa Notice Notice of of Appeal Appeal toto the the Superior Superior Court.

Court. On On March March 10, 10, 2015, 2015, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri filed filed her her Concise Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

Concise Statement Statement ofof Errors Errors Complained Complained ofof onon Appeal.

Appeal. On On October October 26, 26, 2015, 2015, Judge Judge Barrett Barrett issued issued anan Opinion Opinion inin support support of of his his Order Order granting granting summary summary judgment. By Memorandum judgment. By Memorandum ofof November 15, November the Superior 2016, the 15, 2016, affirmed the Court affirmed Superior Court summary judgment. the summary Wells Fargo judgment. Wells Fargo Bank, Bank, N.A.

N.A. v,• Ferreri, Ferreri, No. No. 403 EDA EDA 2015, 2015, 2016 2016 WL WL 6778173 6778173 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Nov.

Nov. 15, 15, 2016).

2016). On On November November 29, 29, 2016, 2016, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri filed filed anan Application Application for for Reargument, Reargument, which which the the Superior Superior Court Court denied denied byby Order Order ofofJanuary January 20, 20, 2017. Sheriffs sale 2017. AA Sheriff's sale ofofthe the property property was was held held onon October 25, October 25, 2017, 2017, and and aa Sheriff's Sheriffs Deed Deed conveying conveying the the property property toto Federal Federal National National Mortgage Mortgage Corporation Corporation was was executed executed onon November November 22, 22, 2017!

2017.'

' Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri filed filed with with this this Court Court a a Petition Petition toto Set Set Aside Aside Sheriff's Sheriffs Sale, Sale, which which was was denied denied byby Order Order ofof February February 12,12, 2018.

2018. Ms,Ms. Ferreri Ferreri again again appealed appealed toto the the Superior Superior Court, Court, which which affirmed affirmed the Order onon the Order November November26, 26, 2018, 2018. Wells Wells Fargo Fargo Bank, Bank, N.A.

N.A. v.• Ferreri, Ferreri, 199 A.3d A.3d 892 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2018).

2018). SheShe then then filed filed with with the the Supreme Supreme CourtCourt a a Petition Petition for for Allowance Allowance ofofAppeal, Appeal, which which was was denied denied onon May May 30, 30, 2019.

2019. Wells Wells Fargo FargoBank, Bank, N.A.

N.A. v.• Ferreri, Ferreri, 212 A.3d A.3d 506 (Pa. (Pa. 2019).

2019).

Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. 2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 3 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

Throughout Throughout the the proceedings proceedings inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case, Case, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri repeatedly repeatedly asserted asserted that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo was was not not the the true true owner owner ofofthe the note note and and mortgage mortgage atat issue, issue, that that Fannie Fannie Mae Mae was was the the true true owner owner and and thus thus aa necessary necessary party, party, and and that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo therefore therefore lacked lacked standing standing toto sue. sue.

For For example, example, inin her her Response Response to to the the Motion Motion for for Summary Summary Judgment, Judgment, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri asserted asserted that that the the Joan loan “had "had been been transferred transferred from from Wells Wells Fargo Fargo toto atat least least one one other other entity. entity. Specifically, Specifically, the the Federal Federal National National Mortgage Mortgage Association Association (‘Fannie ('Fannie Mae’) Mae') had had claimed claimed toto own own the the Note... .”

Note...." (Def.’s (Def.'s Resp, Resp. toto Pl.*s PI.'s Mot.

Mot. for for Summ.

Summ. J..I. § 28 (Foreclosure (Foreclosure Case, Case, Seq.

Seq. 55).)

55).) InIn aa “Sur-Sur "Sur-Sur Reply” Reply" to to the the same same Motion, Motion, she she stated: stated: [Nor [N]or isis Wells Wells Fargo Fargo the the holder holder inin due due course course ofof the the Note. ... Plaintiff Note .... Plaintiffisis misrepresenting a note and what a mortgage represents. ... Plaintiff does misrepresenting a note and what a mortgage represents..., Plaintiff does not not own own the the Note....

Note...

... ... Fannte Fannie Mae Mae isis one one party party that that has has claimed claimed ownership ownership of of the the Note...

Note.....

Plaintiff Plaintiff hashas not not demonstrated demonstrated any any form form ofofevidence evidence that that they they are are the the owner owner of of the the Note, nor have they attached the wet ink Note, nor any Note, nor have they attached the wet ink Note, nor any other evidence of any kind other evidence of any kind toto support support their Pl.'s Mot. their position. for Summ. J. position. [Def.’s [Def.'s Sur-Sur Sur-Sur Reply (Foreclosure Reply toto PI.’s to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 44 (Foreclosure Case, Seq. 61).] to Case, PL.'s Sur Seq.

Sur Reply 61).]

Reply toto Def.’s Def.'s Reply Reply Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

InIn her her Concise Concise Statement Statement of of Errors Errors Complained Complained of of on on Appeal Appeal (Foreclosure (Foreclosure Case, Case, Seq.

Seq. 78), 78), Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri stated: stated: 5.5. This This Honorable Honorable Court Court erred... erred ... inin finding finding that that Plaintiff Plaintiff was was aa holder in due course of the note in question (the “Note”) or that Plaintiff was holder in due course of the note in question (the "Note") or that Plaintiff was ever ever inin physical physical possession possession ofof the the Note, Note, oror ever ever an an owner owner ofof the the Note, Note, asas Plaintiff Plaintiff presented presented no no evidence evidence ofof those those facts. facts.

6.6. This This Honorable Honorable Court Court erred... erred ... when when itit permitted permitted Plaintiff Plaintiff toto argue argue asas agent, agent, asas successor successor by by merger, merger, andand asas owner owner ofofthe the Note Note without without proof proof ofof standing standing toto proceed proceed inin any any of of these these roles. roles. AsAs aa result, result, this this Honorable Honorable Court Court failed failed to require to require Plaintiff Plaintiff to prove standing to prove standing in any capacity while commencing in any capacity while commencing thisthis action.... action.... Wells Wells Fargo Fargo produced produced documents documents thatthat clearly clearly admit admit that that they they are are not not the owner nor the assignee, but are at best a servicer of an undetermined entity. the owner nor the assignee, but are at best a servicer of an undetermined entity.

Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. 2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 4 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

12.

12. This This Honorable Honorable Court Court erred .. . by erred... by failing failing to to consider consider Federal Federal National National Mortgage Mortgage Association’s Association's (“Fannie ("Fannie Mae”) Mae") claim claim ofof ownership ownership of of the the loan loan

Judge Judge Barrett, Barrett, inin his his Opinion Opinion under under Rule Rule 1925 1925 of of the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rules Rules of of Appellate Appellate Procedure, Procedure, addressed addressed and and rejected rejected each each of of the the errors errors asserted asserted by by Ms. Ms. Ferreri.

Ferreri. The The Superior Superior Court, Court, inin affirming affirming the the judgment judgment of of mortgage mortgage foreclosure, foreclosure, necessarily necessarily rejected rejected each each of of these these arguments arguments asas well. well.

B.B. The The Present Present Ejectment Ejectment Case Case Following Following the the Sheriffs Sheriffs sale sale toto Fannie Fannie Mae Mae and and Ms, Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's failure failure toto vacate vacate the the premises, premises, Fannie Fannie Mae Mae brought brought the the present present action action for for ejectment ejectment on on July July 19, 19, 2019.

2019. On On February February 3,3, 2023, 2023, Fannie Fannie Mae Mae filed filed the the Plaintiff's Plaintiff s Motion Motion for for Summary Summary Judgment, Judgment, and and on on May May 25, 25, 2023, 2023, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri filed filed Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion for for Summary Summary Judgment.

Judgment. The The thrust thrust of of Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's argument argument was was that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo had had lacked lacked standing standing toto sue sue inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case and and that that the the foreclosure foreclosure judgment judgment and and resulting resulting Sheriffs Sheriffs sale sale were were therefore therefore tainted tainted byby fraud fraud and and void. void. Oral Oral argument argument onon Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

both both Motions Motions was was held held before before the the undersigned undersigned onon August August 8,8, 2023.

2023.

InIn anan Order Order ofof August August 31, 31, 2023, 2023, the the Court Court denied denied Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's Motion, Motion, granted granted Fannie Fannie Mae’s Mae's Motion, Motion, and and entered entered judgment judgment inin favor favor ofof Fannie Fannie Mae Mae and and against against Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri for for possession possession ofofthe the premises. premises. By By the the same same Order, Order, the the Court Court denied denied Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion toto Compel Compel Discovery, Discovery, seeking seeking additional additional discovery discovery relating relating toto the the underlying underlying mortgage mortgage loan. loan. On On September September 22, 22, 2023, 2023, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri filed filed aa Notice Notice ofofAppeal Appeal toto the the Superior Superior Court, Court, and and onon October October 12, 12, 2023, 2023, she she filed filed aa timely timely Concise Concise Statement Statement ofofMatters Matters Complained Complained ofofonon Appeal Appeal (“Concise ("Concise Statement”).

Statement").

Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. 2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 5 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

II.II. BASIS BASIS FOR FOR THE THE COURT'S COURT'S DECISION DECISION When When title title toto premises premises has has been been obtained obtained as as aa result result of of aa sheriff’s sheriff's sale sale inin aa mortgage mortgage foreclosure, foreclosure, and and where where the the purchaser purchaser of of the the premises premises subsequently subsequently sues sues for for ejectment ejectment of of the the occupants, occupants, the the grounds grounds on on which which the the underlying underlying judgment judgment of of foreclosure foreclosure can can be be collaterally collaterally attacked attacked are are strictly strictly limited. limited.

Initially, Initially, wewe note note that that anan attack attack onon aa sheriffs sheriffs salesale usually usually cannot cannot be be made made ina in a collateral collateral proceeding. proceeding. An An ejectment ejectment action action isis aa proceeding proceeding collateral collateral toto that that under under which which thethe land land was was sold. sold. Thus, Thus, where where itit isis claimed claimed that that the the underlying underlying default default judgment judgment isis merely merely voidable, voidable, that that claim claim willwill not not be be entertained entertained because because such a judgment can not be reached collaterally. However, in an ejectment action such a judgment can not be reached collaterally. However, in an ejectment action itit may may bebe alleged alleged that that the the judgment judgment isis void. void. AA void void decree decree can can be be attacked attacked atat any any time, Where a judgment is void, the sheriffs sale which follows is a nullity. AA time. Where a judgment is void, the sheriffs sale which follows is a nullity. judgment judgment isis void void when when thethe court court had had no no jurisdiction jurisdiction overover the the parties, parties, oror the the subject subject matter, or the court had no power or authority to render the particular judgment. matter, or the court had no power or authority to render the particular judgment.

AA judgment judgment whichwhich isis void void cancan not not support support anan ejectment ejectment action action andand may may bebe asserted asserted asas aa defense defense inin the the ejectment ejectment proceeding. proceeding.

Dime Dime Savings Savings Bank, FSB v.». Greene, Bank, FSB Greene, 813 A.2d A.2d 893, 893, 895 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2002) 2002) (citations (citations omitted). omitted).

InIn the the present present case, case, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri asserts asserts that that the the foreclosure foreclosure judgment judgment against against her her was was obtained obtained byby fraud fraud because, because, she she contends, contends, Wells Wells Fargo Fargo was was without without standing Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

standing toto sue. sue, The The obvious obvious flaw flaw inin this this contention contention isis that that itit has has already already been been rejected, rejected, byby both both this this Court Court and and the the Superior Superior Court, Court, inin the the foreclosure foreclosure case case itself. itself. She She isis therefore therefore precluded precluded from from relitigating relitigating the the issue issue under under the the doctrine doctrine ofofcollateral collateral estoppel, estoppel, oror issue issue preclusion. preclusion. As As the the Superior Superior Court Court has has explained: explained: The The doctrine doctrine ofofcollateral collateral estoppel estoppel... . . . operates operates toto prevent prevent aa question question ofof law law oror anan issue issue ofoffact fact which which has has once once been been litigated litigated and and adjudicated adjudicated finally finally inin aa court court ofofcompetent competentjurisdiction jurisdiction from from being being relitigated relitigated inin aa subsequent subsequent suit.suit, Unlike Unlike res judicata, there is no requirement that there be an identity res judicata, there is no requirement that there be an identity of parties between of parties between the the two two actions actions toto invoke invoke thethe bar.... bar. . . . [A] [A] plea plea ofofcollateral collateral estoppel estoppel isis valid valid if,if, 1)l) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented inin the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the one presented the the later later action, action, 2)2) there there was was aa final final judgment judgment onon the the merits, merits, 3)3) the the party party against against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication, adjudication, and and 4)4) the the party party against against whomwhom itit isis asserted asserted has has had had aa full full and and fair fair opportunity opportunity toto litigate litigate thethe issue issue inin the the question question inin aa prior prior action. action.

Day Day v.». Volkswagenwerk VolkswagenwerkAktiengesellschafl, Aktiengesellschaft, 464 A.2d A.2d 1313, 1313, 1318-19 1318-19 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1983) 1983) (citations (citations omitted). omitted).

2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 6 .l1 Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.

E5 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

• C og g All All four four elements elements of of collateral collateral estoppel estoppel are are satisfied satisfied inin the the present present case. case. As As shown shown above, above, 8" eS gs Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's contention contention inin the the present present case case that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo lacked lacked standing standing toto sue sue for for <6 E &

gt foreclosure foreclosure isis identical identical toto the the one one she she presented presented inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case.

Case. There There was was aafinal final &£ % j& judgment judgment inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case, Case, affirmed affirmed on on appeal. appeal. Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri isis the the Defendant Defendant inin both both o8

~ 5% @~ cases, cases. And And Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri had had aa full full and and fair fair opportunity opportunity toto litigate litigate the the issue issue inin the the prior prior case. case.

8s 0£ Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri has has argued, argued, however, however, that that the the rejection rejection of of her her defense defense inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case S g 'gs isis not not preclusive preclusive because because itit was was obtained obtained by by fraud. fraud. The The mere mere incantation incantation of of fraud, fraud, however, however, isis a {f not not sufficient sufficient toto avoid avoid preclusion. preclusion. As As the the Superior Superior Court Court has has held, held, “[t]here [t]here isis no no blanket blanket $8 g C exception exception toto res res judicata judicata that that allows allows aa party party toto assert assert aa fraud fraud claim claim that that the the party party could could have have gE asserted asserted inin aa prior prior suit suit entitled entitled toto res res judicata judicata effect.” effect." Khalil Khalil v.• Cole, Cole, 240 A.3d A.3d 996, 996, 1004 1004 (Pa. (Pa. £ $s Super. Super. 2020); 2020); see see id. id. atat 1005 1005 (rejecting (rejecting plaintiffs plaintiffs claim claim of of fraud fraud because because she she “had "had [the] [the] e%5 f°2s 8 opportunity opportunity toto press press her her fraud fraud claim claim inin the the [prior] [prior] suit”). suit"). o 0 o.£ 6o it e To establish that Toestablish that the the foreclosure foreclosure judgment judgment was was the the product product of of fraud, fraud, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri has has cited cited es Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

g ± purported purported new new evidence evidence of of fraud fraud supposedly supposedly uncovered uncovered after after the the conclusion conclusion of of the the Foreclosure Foreclosure $2 9g "s 38 Case.

Case. AA review review of of this this evidence evidence shows shows that that there there isis nothing nothing “new” "new" about about it.it. Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri focuses focuses Q gy.@ jh o £ on two items. ontwo items. First, First, she she cites cites “new” "new" evidence evidence that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo sold sold ber her loan loan toto Fannie Fannie Mae Mae two two ¢ ' SB years years before before itit filed filed the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case.

Case. This This isis not not aa new new assertion. assertion. Rather, Rather, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri g g8 S 5 repeatedly repeatedly argued argued inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo was was not not the the owner owner ofof the the Joan loan and and 9s

O s% ~ 3 that that itit had had sold sold the the loan loan toto Fannie Fannie Mae.

Mae. See See supra, supra, p.p. 3.3. Both Both this this Court Court and and the the Superior Superior Court Court z{ found found this this argument argument insufficient insufficient toto prevent prevent foreclosure. foreclosure. $.& 5± %D « e? w ( C 8% E o» 9 d ?@ 8o es d8 83 6 Z 8& Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.

2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 7 The The only only “new” "new" evidence evidence that that Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri now now presents presents relates relates toto the the time of the time of the $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

purported purported sale sale toto Fannie Fannie Mae Mae — i.e., i.e., that that itit occurred occurred two two years years before before Wells Wells Fargo Fargo sued sued for for foreclosure. foreclosure. This This additional additional asserted asserted fact fact adds adds nothing nothing toto the the defense defense that that was was previously previously rejected. rejected. See See id, id. atat 1004 1004 (rejecting (rejecting “Appellant’s "Appellant's argument . . . that argument... that the the two two cases cases are are ‘completely 'completely different’ different' because because inin the the [prior] [prior] suit suit she she was was only only accusing accusing Appellees Appellees ofof aa little little fraud, fraud, whereas whereas now now she she isis accusing accusing them them ofof more more fraud, fraud, including including the the ‘ongoing’ 'ongoing' fraud fraud of, of, apparently, apparently, not not admitting admitting toto Appellant’s Appellant's accusations.”). accusations.").

Second, Second, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri cites cites “new” "new" evidence evidence that that physical physical possession possession ofof the the promissory promissory note note was was not not held held byby Wells Wells Fargo Fargo but but rather rather byby aa “custodian.” "custodian." This This evidence, evidence, again, again, adds nothing toto adds nothing the the argument argument previously previously rejected rejected inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case.

Case. 1It isis not not inconsistent inconsistent with with Wells Wells Kargo’s Fargo's assertion assertion inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case that that itit had had the the right right toto enforce enforce the the note. To the note. To the contrary, contrary, the the unidentified unidentified custodian custodian would would have have been been without without the the power power ofofenforcement enforcement because because itit was was simply simply aa “custodian.” "custodian." “As "As commonly commonly understood understood inin aa commercial commercial setting, setting, a a ‘custodian’ custodian?

takes takes charge charge ofoforor manages manages the the property property ofofanother; another; a a custodian custodian does does not not take take title title toto the the property property Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

under under itsits care care and and control,” control. Alunan Altman v.• Kyler, Kyler, 221 A.3d A.3d 687, 687, 705 (Pa. (Pa. Cmwilth.

CmwIth. 2019), 2019), Thus, Thus, the the physical physical location location ofofthe the note note with with a a “custodian” "custodian" does does not not establish establish fraud fraud inin Wells Wells Fargo’s Fargo's assertion assertion ofof standing. standing. AA bank, bank, like like any any corporate corporate entity, entity, “can "can act actonly only though though itsits officers, officers, employees, employees, and and other otheragents,” agents," Carmen Carmen Enters Enters v.• Murpenter, Murpenter, LLC, LLC, 185 A.3d A.3d 380, 391 380, 391 n.15 n.I5 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2018) 2018) (emphasis (emphasis added), added), and and itit isis immaterial immaterial whether whetherthat thatagent agent isis located located within withinororwithout withoutthe thecorporate corporatewalls. walls. Indeed, Indeed, Wells WellsFargo Fargospecifically specificallymade madethis thispoint pointininthe the Foreclosure ForeclosureCase, Case,stating: stating: “Wells "WellsFargo, Fargo, directly directlyororthrough throughananagent, agent,has haspossession possessionof of thethe Promissory PromissoryNote.”

Note." (Pl.’s (PI.'sMot.

Mot. for forSumm.

Summ. J.J. (Foreclosure (ForeclosureCase, Case,Seq.

Seq. 54), Ex. I I(PI.’s 54),Ex. (PI.'sAffidavit) Affidavit) {| 3 3 (emphasis (emphasisadded).) added).) Evidence Evidencethat thatphysical physical possession possessionofof thethenote notelies lieswith witha acustodian custodianisisthus thus neither neithernew newnor norindicative indicativeofoffraud. fraud.

Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.

2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 8 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

ItIt isis axiomatic axiomatic that that aa claim claim of of fraud fraud must must establish establish aa misrepresentation misrepresentation “which "which isis material material toto the the transaction transaction atat hand.” hand." Viguers Viguers v.• Philip Philip Morris Morris USA, USA, Inc., Ince., 837 A.2d A.2d 534, 534, 540 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2003) 2003) (emphasis (emphasis added), aff'd mem., added), aff'd mem., 881 A.2d A.2d 1262 1262 (Pa. (Pa. 2005).

2005). “A "A misrepresentation misrepresentation isis materia! material ifif itit isis of of such such character character that that had had itit not not been been made made .., .. , the the transaction transaction would would not not have have been been consummated.” consummated." Sevin Sevin v,v. Kelshaw, Kelshaw, 611 A.2d A.2d 1232, 1232, 1237 1237 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1992).

1992). Put Put another another way, way, aa Judicial judicial finding finding isis procured procured by by aa fraudulent fraudulent misrepresentation misrepresentation if,if, had had the the misrepresentation misrepresentation not not been been made, made, the the judicial judicial result result would would have have been been different. different. There There isis no no basis basis for for believing believing that that the the result result inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case would would have have been been different different ifif Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri had had shown shown that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo had had sold sold the the mortgage mortgage loan loan toto Fannie Fannie Mae Mae two two years years inin the the past past (rather (rather than than onon some some indeterminate indeterminate date date inin the the past) past) oror that that Wells Wells Fargo’s Fargo's “possession” "possession" ofof the the note note was was through through aa custodian rather custodian in-house agent, than anan in-house rather than agent, inIn short, short, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri had had aa full full and and fair fair opportunity opportunity — indeed, indeed, multiple multiple opportunities opportunities —~- inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case toto advocate advocate against against foreclosure foreclosure for for lack lack ofofstanding, standing, and and despite repeated despite repeated Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

efforts, efforts, she she did did not not prevail. prevail. IfIfMs.

Ms. Ferreri, Ferreri, having having litigated litigated and and lost lost the the issue, issue, were permitted toto were permitted collaterally collaterally attack attack the the foreclosure foreclosurejudgment judgment onon the the same same grounds, grounds, contending contending that Wells Fargo’s that Wells Fargo's assertion assertion ofofstanding standing was was fraudulent, fraudulent, then then nonojudicial judicial finding finding could could ever ever bebe final. final. This This isis especially especially soso where where the the purported purported “new” "new" evidence evidence ofoffraud fraud adds adds nothing nothing ofofsubstance substance toto the the facts facts that that were were already already ofofrecord record inin the the prior prior case. case. InIn itsits essence, essence, Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's assertion fraud byby assertion ofoffraud Wells Wells Fargo Fargo asas a a defense defense toto ejectment ejectment isis based based onon “the "the ‘ongoing’ 'ongoing' fraud fraud of,of, apparently, not apparently, not admitting admittingtoto [her} [her] accusations” accusations" inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case.

Case. Khalil Khalilv.• Cole, Cole, 240 A.3d 996, 240 A.3d 996, 1004 1004 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2020).

2020). This This Court Courttherefore thereforeconcluded concluded that that Fannie Fannie Mae Mae was was entitled entitled toto summary summary judgment judgmentand andpossession possessionofofthe thepremises. premises.

2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 9 Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

Finally, Finally, the the Court Court denied denied Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion toto Compel Compel Discovery, on the Discovery, on the ground that ground that Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri had had already already had had aa full full and and fair fair opportunity opportunity toto prove prove her her claim claim of of fraud fraud and and was was not not entitled entitled toto aa further further opportunity opportunity for for discovery discovery on on what what she she had had failed failed toto establish establish inin the the Foreclosure Case.

Foreclosure Case.

IH.

III. MS. MS. FERRERI’?

FERRERI'S S ASSERTE ASSERTED ERRORS ON D ERRORS ON APPEAL APPEAL With With the the above above explanatio explanationn asas background background, the Court , the Court now now briefly briefly addresses addresses the the asserted asserted errors errors inin Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's Concise Concise Statement. (Certain duplicative Statement. (Certain duplicative oror overlappin overlapping error assertions ofoferror g assertions are are addressed addressed together.) together.)

L,I. “This "Thisstatement statement ofoferrors errors identifies identifiessome only iningeneral errors only some errors general terms, terms, because the trial court's order and supporting footnote does [sic] not because the trial court's order and supporting footnote does [sic] not allow allowMs.

Ms. Ferreri Ferreritotofully discernthe fullydiscern the exact basisfor exactbasis the Court's allofofthe forall Court's decisions. See Pa. R.A.P. 1925 decisions. See Pa, R.A.P. 1925 (b)(4)(vi).” (b)(4(vi)." This Thisparagraph paragraph isisnot notanan assertion assertion ofoferror errorbut butrather ratheranan introductor introductory comment. InInany y comment. any case, case,the theCourt Court believes believesthat thatthe thesingle-spa single-spaced footnote inin itsitsOrder full-pagefootnote ced full-page OrderofofAugust 31, 2023, August31, 2023, Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

especially especiallywhen whenread read ininthe thecontext contextofof thetheparties’ Motionsand parties' Motions andsupporting Memorandums, supportingMemorand was ums, was sufficient sufficienttotoapprise appriseMs.

Ms. Ferreri Ferreriofofthe thebasis basisforforthe theOrder.

Order.

2. 2. “The "Thetrial trialcourt courterred extentititfound erredtotothetheextent thatit ithad foundthat subjectmatter hadsubject matter Jurisdiction in the underlying jurisdiction in the underlyingforeclosur foreclosure action." e action.”

3 3. “The "Thetrial trialcourt courterred erredtotothetheextent extentititfound thatFannie foundthat Maewas FannieMae wasnotnotanan indispensa ble party indispensable partytotothetheunderlying underlyingmortgage foreclosure. mortgageforeclosure Thisisisa a . This non-waivable issue that can be raised at any time. [Citation of authority non-waivable issue that can be raised at any time. [Citation of authority omitted. omitted.]" ]”

The Theonly onlybasis basisononwhich whichFannie FannieMae Maecould couldhave havebeen beenconsidered consideredananindispensa indispensable party ble party in inthetheForeclosure ForeclosureCase Caseis isMs.

Ms.Ferreri’s Ferreri'sassertion assertionthat thatFannie FannieMae, Mae,and andnotnotWells WellsFargo, wasthethe Fargo,was sole soleentity entitywith withauthority authorityto toenforce enforcethethemortgage. Thatassertion mortgage. That assertionwas wasrejected rejectedin inthetheForeclosure Foreclosure i '

r Case, Case,andandMs.Ms.Ferreri Ferreriis isprecluded precludedfrom fromrelitigating relitgatingthetheissue issuein inthethepresent case. presentcase.

Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.

2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 10 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

4,4. “The 'The trial trial court court erred erred toto the the extent extent itit found found thatthat Wells Wells Fargo Fargo and/or and/or Wachovia Wachovia were were aa ‘secured 'secured party’ party' oror that that those those parties parties had had aa ‘security 'security interest’ under 13 Pa.C.S, $9604 as those terms are defined in 13 interest' under 13 Pa.C.S. $9604 as those terms are defined in 13 PaCS.

Pa.C.S. $9102 $9102 and and that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo and/or and/or Wachovia Wachovia had had the the authority authority toto bring bring an an ‘action’ 'action' under under Pa.R.C.P. Pa.R.C.P. 1141 (a). His 114I(a). It is clear clear from from thethe record record that that atat the the time timeofofthetheforeclosure foreclosure action action andandjudgment judgment those those entities entities had had sold sold any any security security interest interest they they had had toto Fannie Fannie Mae Mae and and could could not not and and did did not not qualify qualify as as aa ‘secured 'secured party.’ party.' They They no no longer longer hadhad andand no no longer longer had had [sic] [sic] anan enforceable enforceable ‘security 'security interest’ interest' under under Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law. law. Gerber Gerberv.y, Piergrossi, Piergrossi, 142 142 A.3d 4.3d 854, 854, 859 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2016) 2016) (A(4 person personforeclosing foreclosing on on “ aa mortgage mortgage must must own own oror hold hold the the note.)” note.)" eS As As discussed discussed above, above, this this issue issue was was raised raised and and rejected rejected inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case, Case, and and Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri isis precluded precluded from from relitigating relitigating it.it. Further, Further, the the citation citation ofof Gerber makes clear Gerber makes clear that the that the plainuiffin plaintiff in foreclosure foreclosure need need not not “own” "own" the the note note ifif itit “holds” "holds" the the note. note.

J.5. “The "The trial trial court court erred erred toto the the extent extent ititfound found that that Fannie Fannie MaeMae adduced adduced sufficient sufficient evidence evidence thatthat Wachovia Wachovia and/or and/or Wells Wells Fargo Fargo hadhad authority act authority toto act on its behalfin on its behalf the underlying foreclosure matter when Fannie Mae's in the underlying foreclosure matter when Famie Mae's corporate corporate witness witness testified testified that that Fannie Fannie Mae Mae plays plays nono role foreclosures role ininforeclosures and does not authorize or provide authority for the filing of foreclosure and does not authorize or provide authority for the filing of foreclosure proceedings. proceedings.'' ” Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

Once Once again, again, the the question question ofofWells Wells Fargo’s Fargo's authority authority toto foreclose foreclose was was determined determined inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case.

Case.

InIn any any event, event, the the testimony testimony ofofFannie Fannie Mae’s Mae's corporate corporate representative that Fannie representative that Fannie Mae Mae itself itselfdoes does not not handle handle foreclosure foreclosure supports supports the the conclusion conclusion that that Wells Wells Fargo, Fargo, itsits servicer, servicer, was was authorized authorized toto dodo so. so. Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's contention contention that that Fannie Fannie Mae’s Mae's corporate corporate representative testified representative testified that thatWells Wells Fargo Fargo lacked lacked such suchauthority authority seriously seriously mischaracterizes mischaracterizesthe thetestimony testimony inin question: question: Q.Q. ... But the ...But theunderlying underlyingforeclosure foreclosurewas wasprosecuted prosecuted ininthe thename nameofof the service provider, Wells Fargo. They were substituted after the merger with the service provider, Wells Fargo. They were substituted after the merger with Wachovia.

Wachovia. ButButthere therewasn’t wasn'tananappearance appearanceentered entered bybya alaw lawfirm firm onon behalf behalfofof Fannie Mae, I can represent that to you, Fannie Mae, I can represent that to you, IsIsthat thathow howthetheprocess processwould wouldwork? work? Fannie FannieMae Maedoesn’t doesn'tget get represented in these foreclosures, you leave it up to the service provider, there’s represented in these foreclosures, you leave it up to the service provider, there's nonoauthorization, authorization,there’s there'snonoauthority, authority,it’s it'sjust justhandled handledbybythe theservice serviceprovider, provider, you really have no role in it; is that correct? you really have no role in it; is that correct?

10IO 2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 11 Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

BY [MS. BY FERRERIS COUNSEL:] [MS. FERRERI’S COUNSEL:] Q.Q. I'm sorry.

I’m What was sorry. What was the the answer, answer, sir? sir?

A.A. That’s That's right. right. [Def.’s Mot. for [Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., for Summ. J., Ex. Ex. 77 (Dep. of Robert (Dep. of Robert Morgan), at 131-32.]

Morgan), at 131-32.]

Thus, Thus, the the actual actual testimony testimony cited cited byby Ms. Ms. Ferreri instead ofof her Ferreri — instead her misleading misleading paraphrase paraphrase—~- makes makes clear clear that that Wells Wells Fargo Fargo was was aa proper foreclosure. plaintiffinin foreclosure. proper plaintiff

6.6. “The "The trial trial court court erred erredinin granting favor ofofFannie judgment ininfavor summaryjudgment grantingsummary Fannie Mae because Fannie Mae did not adduce sufficient evidence in admissible Mae because Fannie Mae did not adduce sufficient evidence in admissible form form inin support support ofofitsits requested requestedrelief,” relief." ItIt isis unclear unclear how how Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri asserts assertsthat Fannie Mae that Fannie failed toto show Mae failed show itsitsentitlement entitlementtoto ejectment. ejectment. The Therecord record onon summary summaryjudgment included the judgment included the Sheriff's Sheriffs Deed Deed toto Fannie Fannie Mae, Mae, establishing establishing itsits ownership ownershipofofthe thepremises (Pl.'s Mot. premises(Pl.’s forSumm.

Mot. for Summ. J.,J., Ex, Ex. 9),9),and and Ms, Ferreri Ms. Ferreri admits admitsthat that she sheremains remainsininpossession. See, possession. See, ¢.g., e.g.,Siskos Britz,790 Siskos v.• Britz, 790A.2d A.2d 1000, 1000, 1006 1006(Pa, 2002) (Pa. 2002) (“Ejectment ("Ejectmentisisananaction actionfiled filedbybya aplaintiff whodoes plaintiffwho doesnot notpossess theland possessthe landbut buthas hasthe theright righttoto Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

possess possessit,it,against againsta adefendant defendantwho whohas hasactual actualpossession.” possession."). ).

7, 7, “The "Thetrial trialcourt courterred erredinindenying Ms. Ferreri’s denyingMs. motionfor Ferreri'smotion summary forsummary Judgment judgmentbecause she adduced sufficient because she adduced evidence to sufficientevidence to prove thatthethetrial provethat trial court courtdid didnot nothave havesubject subjectmatter matterjurisdiction jurisdictionofof thetheunderlying foreclosure underlyingforeclosure Judgment. Ms. Ferreri also adduced sufficient evidence that the judgment. Ms. Ferreri also adduced sufficient evidence that the underlying underlyingforeclosure foreclosurejudgment judgmentwaswasvoid voidasasa amatter matterofof law." law.”

8. 8. “The "Thetrial trialcourt courterred erredwhen whenit itheld heldthat thatthetheunderlying fraudused underlyingfraud usedtoto procure the foreclosure judgment was not ‘material’ and thus could procure the foreclosure judgment was not 'material' and thus couldnotnot sustain sustainFerreri’s Ferreri's fraud frauddefense defenseto toFannie FannieMae'sMae'srequest requestfor forejectment. ejectment. [Citation of authority omitted] Indeed, Wachovia and Wells Fargo [Citation of authority omitted.] Indeed, Wachovia and Wells were Fargowere not permitted to bring not permitted to bringthe underlying the foreclosure case and underlyingforeclosure case and lied to this lied to this Court Courtandandto tothethePennsylvani Pennsylvania a Superior SuperiorCourtCourtononananessential essentialissue issue relating to their claimed statutorily based argument for standing. Thus, relating to their claimed statutorily based argument for standing. Thus, these theseissues issueswerewereessential havesubject courtto tohave essentialforforthethecourt matterjurisdiction subjectmatter jurisdiction over the foreclosure matter.” over the foreclosure matter."

The Thevalidity validityofofthetheunderlying foreclosurejudgment underlyingforeclosure judgmentis isaddressed addressedat atlength above. lengthabove.

ll 11 Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. 2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 12 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

9.9. “The "The trial trial court court erred erred toto the the extent extent itit applied applied the the doctrine ofres doctrine of res judicata judicata by by finding Fannie Mae was a party, or in privity with a party, to the finding Fannie Mae was a party, or in privity with a party, to the underlying underlying foreclosure foreclosure action, action. Indeed, Indeed, the the record record evidence evidence was was toto the the contrary because (a) Wells Fargo and/or Wachovia did not disclose the contrary because (a) Wells Fargo and/or Wachovia did not disclose the pre-foreclosure pre-foreclosure assignment assignment toto Fannie Fannie MaeMae under under Pa.R.C.P. Pa.R.C.P. 1147, 1147, (b) (b) that that Fannie Mae was not in the caption to the underlying foreclosure action, Fannie Mae was not in the caption to the underlying foreclosure action, and and (c) (c) Fannie Fannie Mae's Mae's corporate corporate representative representative testified testified that that Fannie Fannie MaeMae did not authorize Wells Fargo and/or Wachovia to file the foreclosure did not authorize Wells Fargo and/or Wachovia to file the foreclosure action,” action." Collateral Collateral estoppel, estoppel, oror issue issue preclusion, preclusion, based based upon upon findings findings made made inin aa prior prior action, action, does does not not require require that that the the parties parties toto the the two two actions actions bebe the the same, same, soso long long asas the the party party ‘hat that isis precluded precluded (or (or its its privy) privy) isis aa party party toto both both actions. actions.

Parties Parties toto aa subsequent subsequent action action need need not not bebe the the same same asas those those inin the the prior prior suit suit inin order to raise the question of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel may order to raise the question of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel may be be used used asas either either “a"a sword sword oror aa shield” shield" by by aa stranger stranger toto the the [prior] [prior] action, action, asas long long asas the the party against whom the defense is invoked is the same.” party against whom the defense is invoked is the same." Day Day v.• Volkswagenwerk Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, Aktiengesellschaft, 464 A.2d A.2d 1313, 1313, 1319 1319 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1983) 1983) (quoting (quoting Thompson Thompson v.v. Karastan Karastan Rug Rug Mills, Mills, 323 A.2d A.2d 341, 341, 344 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1974) 1974) (bracketed (bracketed insert insert byby the the Day Day Court)).

Court)). InIn this this instance, instance, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri was was aa party party inin both both the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case and and the the Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

Ejectment Ejectment Case Case and and isis therefore therefore subject subject toto issue issue preclusion. preclusion.

Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's mischaracterization mischaracterization ofof the the testimony testimony of of Fannie Fannie Mae’s Mae's corporate corporate representative representative isis addressed addressed supra, supra, pp. pp. 10-11.

10-H.

10.

I0. “The "The trial trial court court erred matter ofoflaw erredasas aa matter law when when itit created createdaa limitless fraud limitless fraud exception to the doctrine of exception to the doctrine of res judicata. ” res judicata." The The Court Court isis atat aa loss loss toto understand understand this this assertion assertion ofoferror. error. No No “fraud "fraud exception” exception" was was created created oror applied applied byby this this Court.

Court.

1212 Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.

2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 13 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

dl.

I1. “The "The trial trial court court erred erred when when itit found found that that Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's assertions offraud assertions of fraud in this case have already been rejected by both this Court and the in this case have already been rejected by both this Court and the Superior Superior ff Court.

Court. Indeed, Indeed, the the record record isis iplainly plainlyJ toto the the contrary, The fact y The :fact contrary, that that these these issues issues were were not not raised raised was was admitted admitted during during oral oral argument argument byby counsel counselfor for Fannie Fannie MaeMae after after the the Court Court asked asked aa direct direct question question about about it,it. [Quotation from transcript of oral argument omitted.]” [Quotation from transcript of oral argument omitted.]" As As discussed discussed inin detail detail supra, supra, pp. pp. 6-8, 6-8, the the two two “new” "new' items items of of evidence evidence raised raised by by Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri inin the the present present case case —- “that the --"that the note note had had been been sold sold two two years years prior” prior" and and “that "that the the note note and and related related documents documents have have been been sent sent toto the the records records custodian” custodian" (Tr., (Tr., 8/8/23, 8/8/23, atat 30) 30) -—- were --were immaterial immaterial elaborations elaborations onon the the same same claims claims made made inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case.

Case. Immediately Immediately following following the the colloquy colloquy atat oral oral argument argument quoted quoted by by Ms. Ms. Ferreri, Ferreri, Fannie Fannie Mae’s counsel went Mae's counsel went onon toto describe describe these these “new” "new" items items asas “irrelevant.” "irrelevant." (Tr., (Tr., 8/8/23, 8/8/23, atat 31.)

31.)

12.

12. “The "The trial trial court court erred erred inin failing failing toto hold hold that that the the fraud Ms. Ferreri fraud Ms. Ferreri alleges alleges in this action renders the foreclosure judgment void.” in this action renders the foreclosure judgment void." /3.

13. “The "The trial trial court court erred erred when when itit failed failed toto apply apply the maxim ofofthe the maxim the common common law that fraud vitiates whatever it touches. For at least a century, law that fraud vitiates whatever it touches. For at least a century, ourour Supreme Supreme Court Court hashas held heldthat that “{c]ourts, "[courts, when when appealed appealed to,to, will willprevent prevent the the triumph of fraud, and, where a Judgment has been obligated by fraud, no triumph of fraud, and, where a judgment has been obligated by fraud, no Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

court court will willpermit permit itsits records records and andprocesses processes toto bebe the instruments ofof the instruments infamy.” infamy." See,See, Sallada Sall@day. v. Mock, 121 A. 54 (Pa. 1923). Here, Mock, 121 A. 54 (Pa. 1923). Here, the trial the trial court court has has allowed allowed itsits records records andandprocesses processes toto bebe used usedtoto cover-up cover-up fraud fraud in Ms. Ferreri's case and apparently is content to allow fraud to in Ms. Ferreri's case and apparently is content to allow fraud to potentially potentiallytriumph triumph outside outside ofofthis this case, case, because because itit ignored ignoredthe the undisputed undisputed evidence Wells Fargo that Wells evidence that Wachovia have and/or Wachovia Fargo and/or apparently never have apparently never identified identifiedanan assignment assignment toto Fannie Fannie Mae Mae inin a aforeclosure foreclosure case case inin Montgomery MontgomeryCounty Countybasedbasedupon upon information informationavailable available atat the the Department Department of Public Records in electronic format.” of Public Records in electronic format." Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's assertions assertionsofoffraud fraud have have been been fully fully addressed addressed above. above.

1313 Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. 2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 14 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

4, 14. “The "The trial trial court court erred erred inin denying denying Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's request request for for additional additional discovery discovery which which accompanied accompanied her her response response toto Fannie Fannie Mae's Mae's motion for motion for summary judgment.” summary judgment." 15.

15. “The "The trial trial court court erred erred inin denying denying Ms. Ms. Ferreri's Ferreri's pending pending motion motion toto compel compel discovery, discovery."” “Although "Although parties parties must must be be given given reasonable reasonable time time toto complete complete discovery discovery before before aa trial trial court court entertains entertains any any motion motion for for summary summary judgment, judgment, the the party party seeking seeking discovery discovery isis under under an an obligation obligation toto seek seek discovery discovery inin aa timely timely fashion.” fashion." Reeves v. Reeves v. Middletown Middletown Athletic Athletic Ass'n, Ass'n, 866 A.2d A.2d 1115, 1115, £124 H24 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2004), 2004).

AA trial trial court court isis not not required required toto grant grant aa party party additional additional time time for for discovery discovery before before ruling ruling onon aa summary summary judgment judgment motion motion where where the the parties parties have have already already had had aa reasonable reasonable timetime for for discovery discovery andand the the party party opposing opposing summary summary judgment judgment has has not not demonstrated demonstrated that that itit was was prevented prevented from from timely timely completing completing thethe necessary necessary discovery. discovery.

Burrell Burrell v.• Streamlight, Streamlight, Inc., Inc., 222 A.3d A.3d 1137, 1137, 1142 1142 n.2 n.2 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2019) 2019) (citing (citing Ft.

FI Cherry Cherry Sch.

Sch.

Dist.

Dist. v.• Gedman, Gedman, 894 A.2d A.2d 135, 135, 140 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2006)), 2006)).

InIn the the present present case, case, Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri had had more more than than three three years years toto take Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee

take discovery discovery after after service service ofof the the Complaint Complaint inin ejectment ejectment ~~ not counting ----not counting the the five five prior prior years years ofof proceedings proceedings inin the the Foreclosure Foreclosure Case Case before before judgment judgment inin that that case case was was entered. entered. Ms. Ms. Ferreri Ferreri clearly clearly had had more more than than “a"a reasonable reasonable time time for for discovery,” discovery," id., id., and and was was not not entitled entitled toto yet yet additional additional discovery discovery inin support support ofof aa fraud fraud claim claim based based onon contentions contentions that that had had already already been been fully fully litigated litigated and and decided decided against against her. her.

1414 Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. 2019-18305-0095 Opinion, Page 15 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of the

IV.

IV. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION For For the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above, above, the the Court Court granted granted Fannie Fannie Mae’s Mae's Motion Motion for for Summary Summary Judgment Judgment and and denied denied Ms. Ms. Ferreri’s Ferreri's Motion.

Motion.

BY BY THE THE COURT: COURT:

A Me of ZY S. SALT | J.J.

efiled cfilcd on:{-/f- 4 on:/41.aaon:4 /-I[3¥ ; copies copies emailed emailed on: [-ll A to: to: Andrea Andrea Grace, Grace, Esquire, Esquire, Court C6urt Administration Administration —-Civil Civil Division Division Michael Jorgensen, Court Administration- Civil Division Michael Jorgensen, Court Administration- Civil Division Case# 2019-18305-95 Docketed at Montgomery County Prothonotary on 01/11/2024 3:54 PM, Fee