# Fannie Mae v. Ferreri, L.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 24, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10851167

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 24, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Lazarus
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10851167

## Opinion text

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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.
2019. Wells
Wells
Fargo
FargoBank,
Bank, N.A.
N.A. v.• Ferreri,
Ferreri, 212
212 A.3d
A.3d 506
506 (Pa.
(Pa. 2019).
2019).

22
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
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
4
Sur-Sur Reply
(Foreclosure
Reply toto PI.’s
4
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.

3
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").

4
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
813 A.2d
A.2d 893,
893, 895
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
464 A.2d
A.2d 1313,
1313, 1318-19
1318-19 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 1983)
1983) (citations
(citations

omitted).
omitted).

5
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.

5
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
55
{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
9
gE
asserted
asserted inin aa prior
prior suit
suit entitled
entitled toto res
res judicata
judicata effect.”
effect." Khalil
Khalil v.• Cole,
Cole, 240
240 A.3d
A.3d 996,
996, 1004
1004 (Pa.
(Pa.
9 £
$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
0

O
s% ~
3 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
5±
%D
«
e? w
(
C

86
8%
E
o» 9
d ?@
8o
es
d8
83 6
3 Z
8&
85
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
221 A.3d
A.3d 687,
687, 705
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
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.

7
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
837 A.2d
A.2d 534,
534, 540
540 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super.

2003)
2003) (emphasis
(emphasis added), aff'd mem.,
added), aff'd mem., 881
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
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.

8
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.

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.
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
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
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
323 A.2d
A.2d 341,
341, 344
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
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
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
894 A.2d
A.2d 135,
135, 140
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

15
15

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10851167. Public record. Not legal advice.