The opinion
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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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.
____________________________________________
1 Our standard of review in cases of summary judgment is well-settled. This
court will only reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment where
there was an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Merriweather v.
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 684 A.2d 137, 140 (Pa. Super. 1996).
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.
2 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,
403 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
____________________________________________
3 In the Foreclosure Case, this Court found Ferreri’s allegations against Wells
Fargo’s standing in the Foreclosure Case “baseless” and that her allegations
of fraud by Wells Fargo were “lack[ing] merit.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.
Ferreri, 403 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 15, 2016) at 8, 10 (unpublished
memorandum decision).
-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
____________________________________________
4 Appellate courts can impose fees sua sponte under Rule 2744.
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
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
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
199 A.3d
A.3d 892
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.
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.