SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2178 EDA 2014

Leslie-Eve: Orman
v
MortgageIT, et al
BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
Appeal from the Order of
Chester County Court of Common Pleas
2012-04352-RC
Greenberg, Jacqueline
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
P. O. Box 677
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
(973) 360-7900
vogtj@gtlaw.com
Counsel for Appellee MortgageIT
Bryce, Martin Christopher, Jr.
Ballard Spahr, LLP
1735 Market St. 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
(215) 665-8500
bryce@ballardspahr.com
Counsel for Appellee CitiMortgage

Leslie-Eve: Orman
888 Woodlawn Ave.
Phoenixville, PA 19460
(267) 664-3633
leslieorman@cavtel.net
Sui Juris Appellant

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................5
#1 Order of Ann Marie Wheatcraft....................................................6
#2 Order of Jeffrey R. Sommer.........................................................8
#3 Order of Jeffrey R. Sommer.........................................................9
3. STATEMENT OF SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW.................................10
4. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED...............................................12
5. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................................13
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................................................20
7. ARGUMENTS FOR APPELLANT........................................................................23
Was opening Default Judgment appropriate?............................................23
Is Mr. Orman a necessary party to this case?.............................................27
Was Summary Judgment improper?..........................................................28
Should amendment of the complaint been permitted?...............................39
Does using MERS in a Mortgage violate statutes of Pennsylvania?.........40
Have successors defaulted on the mortgage?............................................44
Is the subject Mortgage recordable?..........................................................45
Do forged documents remain publicly recorded?......................................46
Is a Mortgage without current recorded beneficiary abandoned?..............48
Is THIS mortgage a nullity in the public records? ................................49
8. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................50
9.OPINION..................................................................................................................53
Hon. Sommer 7-11-2014............................................................................53
Opinion Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925..........................................................58
10.CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS ........................................................... 62
11. RE-STATED FOOT NOTES AND END NOTES.................................................69
12. VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATIONS..........................................................73

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218, 571 Pa. 580 (2002)...........11
Balk v. Ford Motor Co., 446 Pa. 137, 140, 285 A.2d 128, 130 (1971)........................10
Caiarelli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 46 A.3d 643 (Pa. 2012)........................................11
Dippel et al. v. Brunozzi, 365 Pa. 264 Pa: Supreme Court 1950..................................44
Fine v. Checcio, 582 Pa. 253, 870 A.2d 850, 857 (2005))...........................................11
Hartzfeld v. Green Glen Corp., 380 Pa. Super. 513, 552 A.2d 306 (1989)..................27
MERS v Nebraska Dept of Banking 270 Neb. 529; 704 N.W.2d 784; 2005 Neb.
LEXIS 177 (Ne. 2005),................................................................................................41
Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. ot Holy Ghost, 565 Pa. 571, 777 A.2d 418, 429 (2001).. .11
Nancy Becker, Recorder of Deeds of Montgomery County v. MERS Corp., Inc. 904 F.
Supp. 2D 436 (2012).......................................................................28, 39, 40, 41, 43,44
Orman v. MortgageIT 2012 WL 1071219 (E.D.PA.)............................................33
.
Schultz v Erie Ins. Exchange, 477 A.2d 471, 505 Pa. 90 (1984).....................10, 20, 23
Seeger v First Union National Bank, 836 A.2d 163 (Pa.Super. 2003)........................23
Smith V. Morrell Beer Distributors, Inc, Pa. Sup.No. 2311 EDA 2010 (2011) ..26
US Bank N.A. v. Mallory, 2009 WL 2915680..............................................................26
Wolloch v. Aiken, 815 A.2d 594, 572 Pa. 335 (2002)...................................................12

STATUTE INDEX

15 U.S.C. 1635,
18 Pa. C.S.A. 4103
18 Pa. C.S.A. 4911
18 Pa. C.S.A. 4101
18 Pa. C.S.A. 4101(a)(2)
18 Pa. C.S.A. 4101(a)(3)
21 Pa. Stat 351
21 Pa. Stat. 444
21 Pa. Stat. 621
21 Pa. Stat. 623-1
21 Pa. Stat. 625
21 Pa. Stat 711
FRCP 16
Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)
Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)(1)
Pa. R.A.P. 341 (a)
Pa. R.C.P. 1035.2
Pa. R.C.P. 1061(b)
Pa. R.C.P. 237.3(a)

14
42
42, 48
37, 48
33
33
21, 38, 42, 44
21, 38, 43, 45
21, 36, 38, 43, 45, 48
21
14, 21, 37, 46
42
21, 22, 39
29
16
5
10, 11, 12
14, 20, 27, 47
24

1.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction in this case under Pa.
R.A.P. 341 (a) General Rule.Except as prescribed in subdivision (d), and
(e) of this rule, an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of an
administrative agency or lower court.

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 5

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 6

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 7

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 8

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 9

3. STATEMENT OF SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Chester County Court of Common Pleas opened a Default
Judgment in favor of Defendant MortgageIT, and thereafter entered Orders
denying Plaintiffs Motion to deny Defendant's Petition to Open Default
Judgment; and granting Summary Judgment to Defendants MortgageIT
and CitiMortgage; while denying Plaintiffs other pending Motions as moot.
Standards for opening default judgments, and demonstrating
whether a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether
summary judgment should have been entered in favor of Defendants,
presents questions of law over which this Court exercises de novo review.
Schultz v Erie Ins. Exchange, 477 A.2d 471, 505 Pa. 90 (1984). A petition to
open a judgment is addressed to the equitable powers of the court and is a
matter of judicial discretion. The court will only exercise this discretion
when (1) the petition has been promptly filed; (2) a meritorious defense can
be shown; and (3) the failure to appear can be excused. Balk v. Ford Motor
Co., Inc. 446 Pa. 137, 140, 285 A.2d 128, 130 (1971). Pa. Rule of Civil
Procedure (Pa.R.C.P.) 1035.2 states that any party may move for
summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law (1) whenever
there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of
the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 10

discovery or expert report .

Rule 1035.2 sets forth the general principle that a motion for
summary judgment is based on an evidentiary record which entitles the
moving party to judgment as a matter of law. (Emphasis added) See,
Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2, Official Note.
Summary Judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the
record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa. R.
Civ. P. 1035.2. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218,
571 Pa. 580 (2002); See also, Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. Of The Holy
Ghost, 565 Pa. 571, 777 A.2d 418, 429 (2001).
When deciding a motion for summary judgment, a court must view
the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, , and all
doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be
resolved against the moving party. Caiarelli v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 46
A.3d 643 (Pa. 2012); Fine v. Checcio, 582 Pa. 253, 870 A.2d 850, 857
(2005)). The court may grant summary judgment only where the right to it
is clear and free from doubt. Id.
Whether or not trial practice frequently involves formal or unofficial
extensions of discovery with the imposition of sanctions, , we must look at
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 11

the record of the case to determine whether or not discovery is complete to

establish the timeliness or prematurity of a motion for summary judgment
under Rule 1035.2. Wolloch v. Aiken, 815 A.2d 594, 572 Pa. 335 (2002).
4. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED
1) Was opening the default judgment appropriate?
The lower court thought it appropriate.
2) Is Mr. Orman a necessary party to this case?
The lower Court disagreed that he was not an indispensable party.
3) Was Summary Judgment improper?
The lower court disagreed.
4) Should amendment of the complaint been permitted?
The lower court disagreed.
5) Does using MERS in a Mortgage violate statutes of Pennsylvania?
The lower court stated using MERS does not violate Pennsylvania
law.
6) Have successors defaulted on the mortgage?
The lower court did not address this issue.
7) Is the subject Mortgage recordable?
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 12

The lower court did not address this issue.

8) Do forged documents remain publicly recorded?
The lower court did not address this issue.
9) Is a Mortgage without current recorded beneficiary abandoned?
The lower court did not address this issue.
10) Is THIS mortgage a nullity in the public records?
The lower court did not address this issue.
5. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The names of the judges whose determinations are to be reviewed are
the Hons. Ann Marie Wheatcraft and Jeffrey R. Sommer.
On April 30, 2010, Mr. Orman had mailed to CitiMortgage, the
alleged servicer of the subject Mortgage, a Notice of Intent to Rescind the
Mortgage. Though ignored by CitiMortgage, Mr. Ormans Notice included
in the title Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent, Notice to Agent is Notice
to Principal. Mr. Orman also sent a copy of this Notice to MortgageIT, the
alleged lender of record in the Recorder of Deeds Chester County Office,
but was returned by the U.S. Post Office as undeliverable. Mr. Orman
received no response to his Notice within 20 days as required by the federal

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 13

Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA; 15 U.S.C. 1635, et seq.)1.

On inspection of the recorded Mortgage Plaintiff discovered it to be
incomplete and thus not perfected. The Certificate of Residence required
under 21 Pa. Stat. 625 was not properly completed or signed. Plaintiff,
Appellant Orman, filed this instant action under Pa. R.C.P. Rule 1061(b)(3)
to Quiet Title to her property on the basis that there exists unrecorded
transfers of the Orman Mortgage, and that there is no such identifiable
party with the capacity to assign or release the Orman Mortgage.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Leslie-Eve: Orman, filed the in rem action April
2012 to Quiet Title and foreclose on the rescinded Mortgage recorded [by
Defendant Mortgage IT] in the Recorder of Deeds Chester County Clerks
Office on the record of Plaintiffs property commonly known as 888
Woodlawn

Avenue,

Phoenixville,

Pennsylvania.

According

to

Plaintiff/Appellant Orman and documentation supplied to her by

Defendant/Appellee MortgageIT, MortgageIT enjoyed no interest in the
Mortgage or Orman s property since June 23, 2007, and MortgageITs
purported successors in interest breached and defaulted on terms of said
1 Plaintiff and her spouse filed an action in the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Orman v. MortgageIT, 2012 WL 1071219 (E.D.PA.)) against the unrecorded
interests in the Mortgage (MortgageIT was included by error and was removed), CitiMortgage,
the purported servicer of the Mortgage, and The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie
Mae/FNMA) the alleged true owner of the Plaintiffs Mortgage, for violations of TILA and
RESPA. In the conclusions, Judge Slomsky concluded the Ormans had not sufficiently stated a
cause of action under TILA and RESPA.
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 14

Mortgage, failing to record an Assignment of Mortgage in the offices of the

Recorder of Deeds Chester County before December 23, 2007.
MortgageIT defaulted on Plaintiffs Complaint. Default Judgment was
obtained on June 18, 2012. Thirteen (13) days following MortgageITs
default, the attorney representing MortgageIT contacted Orman with an
offer of consent order to remove the Default Judgment. Plaintiff agreed
provided it was received within three (3) days. A

stipulation of no

interest, not a consent order was received, which Orman did not deem
satisfactory. Fifty-one (51) days following MortgageITs Default Judgment,
MortgageIT filed Petition to Open Default Judgment. The Petition did not
include a proposed response to Plaintiffs Complaint; neither did
MortgageIT offer any explanation as to why there was no response or
appearance within the 31 days following receipt of Plaintiffs Complaint, or
within 10 days following the entry of Default.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deny MortgageIts Petition
to Open Default Judgment2 and a response in objection to said Petition to
Open Default Judgment.
On August 27, 2012 DEFENDANT CITIMORTGAGE entered
documents with false assertions into the Court, including a copy of the Note
that contained endorsements by MORTGAGEIT and CITIMORTGAGE in
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 15

an attempt to intervene in this case as an assignee of the mortgage without

being assigned the mortgage.
At hearing on September 19, 2012 before Judge Wheatcraft, Plaintiff
Orman vocally objected and defended against the opening of the Default
Judgment.2
The Default Judgment was opened on October 2, 2012. Pa. R.A.P.
Rule 311(a)(1) prohibited a direct appeal of this case until all claims of relief
were adjudicated. The recent decision of Summary Judgment was the only
other Decision in this case. Pa. R.A.P. Rule 311(a)(1) states that: If orders
opening, vacating or striking off a judgment are sought in the alternative,
no appeal may be filed until the court has disposed of each claim for relief.
Pa. R.A.P. Rule 311(a)(1) is the reason why the foregoing issues are a part of
this appeal, and why no appeal was made earlier.
On October 9, 2012, CitiMortgage filed an Assignment of Mortgage
dated September 20, 2012 into the Recorder of Deeds Chester County
Office on Ormans propertys record. Defendant CitiMortgage joined into
the case on October 12, 2012 by Praecipe, proffering the highly
questionable, newly recorded Assignment of Mortgage dated September

2 Orman filed Motion to Deny MortgageIT Petition to Open Default Judgment and responded in
Objection to petition of CitiMortgage and in hearing to open default judgment vehemently and
energetically objected to Petition to Open Default Judgment to preserve Question 1.
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 16

20, 2012.

CitiMortgage filed into this case a Praecipe to Substitute

CitiMortgage for Defendant MortgageIT, while proffering the alleged

Assignment of Mortgage to prove its standing as the new owner of the
mortgage. In this case CitiMortgage filed New Matter and argues that Mr.
Orman is an indispensable party, also stating that all issues are res
judicata.
Orman responded with a reply and responses to CitiMortgages
claims.3 Additionally, a Motion for permission to amend the Complaint was
filed by Orman on the basis that MortgageIT is identified [on the purported
Assignment of Mortgage] as the Assignor when MortgageIT previously
stated to the Court and Plaintiff, that it has not possessed an interest in
Plaintiffs Mortgage for the past five (5) years. In fact, MortgageITs
attorney also stated this to the Court and Plaintiff in a hearing which
occurred the day before the alleged Assignment of Mortgage was created.
Both Defendants responded to Plaintiffs Motion for permission to
amend the Complaint. This was followed by Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment, Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, and
another Motion to amend the Complaint filed by Orman 4 which included
3 Orman response challenged pleading of CitiMortgage, and Motion to Amend Complaint to
preserve Questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(Item 23, Motion to Amend Complaint, paragraphs 19-79
ignored/ dismissed by the court).
4 Orman response challenged pleading of CitiMortgage, and Motion to Amend Complaint to
preserve Questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (Item #42 Plaintiff 2nd Motion to Amend pages 7-27,
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 17

claims of apparent forgery against CitiMortgage following the statement by

MortgageIT:
MortgageIT was not a party to the assignment and was not
involved in the execution of the September 20, 2012 assignment
whatsoever. MortgageIT had no interest in the subject property to
assign.5
Both Defendants responded to Plaintiffs second Motion to Amend
the Complaint. In their response, CitiMortgage stated the assigning party
(assignor) of the subject alleged Assignment of Mortgage was Fannie
Mae.6
Thereafter, a Motion for Interlocutory Judgment was filed by Orman
to adjudicate her claims of apparent forgery, remove all previous motions
as moot, and remove CitiMortgage7 from the instant case as an interloper in
this case and upon Plaintiffs property; as well as a third Motion to Amend
the Complaint.
After some time had passed, Orman received NO NOTIFICATION
from the Chester County Court of Common Pleas concerning any of

ignored/dismissed by the court).

5 Item #37 Defendant MortgageIT's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
and Cross-Motion for judgment on the Pleadings or, in the alternative Summary Judgment
page 5 paragraph 11.
6 Item #35 Defendant CitiMortgage Def. Response dated 11/29/2012-Pg 8 22).
7 Orman response challenged pleading of CitiMortgage, and Motion to Amend Complaint to
preserve Questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, (Item #52 Brief in Support of Motion for Interlocutory
Judgment pages 3, 4 ignored/dismissed by the court)
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 18

Orman's Motions to Amend, or the responsive pleading from Defendant

CitiMortgage to the Motion for Interlocutory Judgment.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED HERE: Plaintiff/Appellant Orman is a Sui
Juris litigant, and not familiar with practice in law, mistaking silence of the
Court as a denial of Plaintiffs Motions because of the objections of
Defendants. It should also be noted that the online docket of this case
indicated judgment and did not indicate, in the status section, that the
judgment was reopened and the case was pending (This designation
changed to pending after Hon. Sommer was assigned this case). This
clerical error may have contributed to the lack of response by the Court
from the time from the opening of the Default Judgment on October 2,
2012 to the re-assignment of the case to Judge Sommer in June 2014
following inquiry by Orman to the Court Administration office as to the
hearing calendar of Judge Wheatcraft after the filing by Orman of another
Praecipe for Determination on the previous Motion for Interlocutory
Judgment,8 and the related documents.
After only eight days of this case being re-assigned to Judge Sommer,
a decision of Summary Judgment in support of the Defendants was
rendered, thereby dismissing all motions of Orman as Moot. After the
8 Orman response challenged pleading of CitiMortgage, and Motion to Amend Complaint to
preserve Questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (Item #56, pg 3, 4- Brief in Support of Motion,
ignored/dismissed by the court)
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 19

hearing on the Petition to Open the Default Judgment, there was no

hearing or decision on the merits or any Motions of this case. Orman
promptly filed a Notice of Appeal.
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1) Was opening Default Judgment appropriate?
The standard set by Schultz v Erie Ins. Exchange, 477 A.2d 471, 505 Pa.
90 (1984) was not achieved to facilitate the opening of the default
judgment.
2) Is Mr. Orman a necessary party to this case?
Pa. R.C.P. 1061(b) has no requirement as to who must be included in an
action to Quiet Title. Mr. Orman's interests would remain unaffected by
this action.
3) Was Summary Judgment improper?
Defendant CitiMortgage correctly suggested in his opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Motion was premature.
Not all the issues in this case were adjudicated in the action before the
federal court as they either did not exist, or the affected party was not
involved in that action.
4) Should amendment of the complaint been permitted?
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 20

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule #16 states:

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the
court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.
5) Does using MERS in a Mortgage violate statutes of Pennsylvania?
The only purpose Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems is used in
mortgages is for violation of the compulsory recording statutes under
Title 21 of the Pennsylvania statutes.
6) Have successors defaulted on the mortgage?
Pennsylvania has Compulsory Recording statutes under 21 Pa. Stat.
351, 444, 621, 623-1.

Article 16 of the Mortgage requires

compliance with local and federal laws. Failure to comply is default by

the Mortgagee.
7) Is the subject Mortgage recordable?
Pennsylvania has a Certificate of Residence requirement under 21 Pa.
Stat. 625 for recording of Mortgages, giving the Recorder of Deeds
instruction to refuse to record without the completed Certificate the law
demands.
8) Do forged documents remain publicly recorded?

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 21

It is criminally illegal to file forged or fraudulent documents into the

offices of the county Recorder of Deeds.
9) Is a Mortgage without current recorded beneficiary abandoned?
Under 21 Pa. Stat. 621, an assignment of mortgage that is not
recorded within six months cannot be used to transfer any interest to
another party.
10) Is THIS mortgage a nullity in the public record?
Under 13 Pa. Con. St. 3203(b) and 9514, only the current recorded
creditor can assign or release any instrument securing a debt.

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 22

7.

ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT

Was Opening Default Judgment Appropriate?
The Petition to Open the Default Judgment was not filed within 10

days of the default judgment being on the docket, and is subject to the
standard set by Schultz v Erie Ins. Exchange, 477 A.2d 471, 505 Pa. 90
(1984). To open a default judgment, the court must consider 1) whether the
petition to open was timely, 2) whether there is a good reason for delay
leading to the default, and 3) whether a meritorious defense has been
shown. All three prongs of the test must be met.
The trial court cannot "open a default judgment based on the
equities of the case when [First Union] has failed to establish
all three of the required criteria," Castings Condominium Assoc.
Inc., v. Klein, 444 Pa.Super. 68, 663 A.2d 220, 225 (1995),
Seeger v First Union National Bank, 836 A.2d 163 (Pa.Super.
2003).
1). The Petition was not timely. There was about three months following
service of the complaint to the filing of the Petition to Open the
Default Judgment. MortgageIT claimed misunderstanding that
Orman would accept the Disclaimer of Interest. The Court opined
that statement satisfied two prongs of the test.
2). Defendant did not appear or request an extension of time to respond
prior to default. No reason was offered for lack of appearance or
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 23

response to the complaint leading up to the Default. Orman was

contacted by Counsel of MortgageIT 13 days following default,
making no entry of appearance until almost two more months later.
3). There was no answer to the complaint attached to the petition to
open the default judgment at all as a meritorious defense, required
without exception to open a default judgment pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.
237.3(a).
Rule 237.3 governs relief from a judgment by default or of non
pros. Subdivision (a) requires that a verified copy of the
complaint or answer sought to be filed be attached to the petition
for relief from the judgment. This enables the court to determine
from the actual complaint or answer to be filed whether it alleges
a meritorious cause of action or defense.
MortgageIT had 41 days to file a response before the Default
Judgment was obtained, no explanation or reason given for Default
occurring May 30, 2012. Default Judgment was obtained June 18, 2012 and
Petition to Open Default Judgment of MortgageIT was filed August 8, 2012,
without required response to complaint attached.
MortgageIT did not reach the standard to open the default judgment,
nor did MortgageIT claim any equity in the mortgage or property, Counsel
for MortgageIT proffered a Disclaimer of Interest with the Petition to
Open the Default Judgment. Counsel for MortgageIT responded in hearing
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 24

of September 19, 2012, MortgageIT had transferred its interest in this

mortgage on June 23, 2007 (ABA & RR Page 145 Lines 13, 14) negating
any purpose of protecting equity by the opening of the Default Judgment,
as there was none. The Disclaimer of Interest was informing the Court that
MortgageIT had no interest in the Mortgage for five years. The Disclaimer
of Interest should have been interpreted the opposite of Meritorious
Defense, as admitting to claims of Plaintiff that MortgageIT had no
interest since June 23, 2007 and the recorded Mortgage was abandoned
without recorded assignment(s).
While the Court considered the filing of the Petition to Open Default
Judgment timely, satisfying the first prong of the three part test, no
excuse or reason was offered by MortgageIT or required by the Court as to
why there had been no filed response to the complaint from the date of
service to Default of May 30, 2012. This is failure of prong two required to
Open Default Judgment, as there was no opportunity given the Court to
exercise its discretion to accept or reject the excuse or reason of failure to
respond prior to Default. Determination of a Meritorious defense is also an
area where the Court has discretion, but had no opportunity to determine
whether the response was meritorious without the attachment of the
response, leaving the third prong required for the test also as a failure of

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 25

the Defendant.
The Disclaimer of Interest submitted with the Petition to Open
Default Judgment indicates MortgageIT has no equitable interest. The
equitable powers of the Court should have left the Default Judgment in
place as there is no equitable interest to protect. Failure to submit the
required proposed response to the complaint with the Petition to Open
Default Judgment should have been fatal for the effort. MortgageIT
deliberately chose not to file an answer to the complaint with the Petition.
..under the traditional three-part test for opening a default
judgment, Appellants would not be entitled to relief on two
grounds. First, as stated above, Appellants' petition failed to set
forth a meritorious defense supported by verified factual
allegations; second, Appellants did not provide a reasonable
excuse for failing to file an answer. Smith V. Morrell Beer
Distributors, Inc, Pa. Super. No. 2311 EDA 2010 (2011)
... An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court, in reaching
its conclusions, overrides or misapplies the law, or exercises
judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will. US Bank N.A. v. Mallory,
2009 WL 2915680, *6 (Pa Super. Filed Sept. 24, 2009) (quoting
ABG Promotions v Parkway Publishing, Inc. 834 A.2d 613, 615615 (Pa. Super. 2003 (en banc) (quotations, quotation marks,
and citations omitted))
Opening the default judgment without reaching the required
standards set by Schultz v Erie Ins. Exchange is abuse of discretionary
judgment.

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 26

IS MR. ORMAN NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS CASE?

In the Opinion dated June 11, 2014, Hon. Sommer stated As a
signatory to the mortgage Mr. Orman is an indispensable party to any
Action to Quiet Title. See. Hartzfeld v. Green Glen Corp., 380 Pa. Super.
513, 552 A.2d 306 (1989). Absent Mr. Orman as a party, this action cannot
proceed.

Pa. R.C.P. 1061(b) has no requirement as to who must be

included in an action to Quiet Title. Without a quotation of the text of that

opinion, it is difficult to see why Mr. Orman would be indispensable to this
case as his rights would not be affected. Review of the case cited for this
decision, Orman discovered the opinion cited was the opposite as
expounded:
The inquiry into whether a party is indispensable to the plaintiff's
action must be viewed from the perspective of protecting the rights
of the absent parties... E-Z Parks, Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking
Authority, 103 Pa.Commw. 627, 521 A.2d 71, 75 (1987). Hartzfeld
v. Green Glen Corp., 380 Pa. Super. 513, 552 A.2d 306 (1989).
CitiMortgage did not indicate in pleadings whether Mr. Orman should be a
defendant or plaintiff, or indicate why Mr. Orman, without beneficial
interest in the mortgage, would be a required party to this action to Quiet
Title. In a successful effort to deceive the court, the cited case was not
quoted.
In the case of the Recorder of Deeds Montgomery County v
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 27

MERSCORP in response to a motion to dismiss by MERSCORP, the Hon. J.

C. Joyner decided all parties in any manner interested are not required to
be party to the claim:
.... December 12, 2012 Defendants .., filed an answer to the
complaint and moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Claims to Quiet Title
asserting that Plaintiff .....failed to join the owners or others with
interest in the property(ies) as real parties in interest...... These
arguments were likewise rejected.... for the reasons that: . (4)
Defendants had failed to meet their burden to show that the
property owners were indeed necessary parties. page 3 doc 108
April 21, 2014 Nancy Becker, Recorder of Deeds of Montgomery
County v. MERS Corp., Inc. 904 F. Supp. 2D 436 (2012)
As there appears no reason under Pennsylvania Statutes, law, Rules
of Civil Procedure, or case law to suggest that all property owners or cosigners of indebtedness are indispensable to any action to quiet title not
affecting that party's interests, the finding of Judge Sommer regarding the
necessity of Mr. Orman in the case shows lack of diligence in case
preparation, judicial prejudice, and abuse of judicial discretion.
WAS SUMMARY JUDGMENT IMPROPER?
Defendant CitiMortgage correctly suggested in his opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Motion was premature.
Summary Judgment is appropriate only if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact. The Mortgage Assignment

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 28

dated September 20, 2012 to CitiMortgage is disputed, as it transfers no

interest in the property, not being assigned from a party with current
recorded interest in the Mortgage. CitiMortgage entered this case by
Praecipe, using this contrived Assignment of Mortgage to exhibit standing
CitiMortgage does not possess.
Summary Judgment did not address issues that could not be
encompassed by the action in the Federal Court. The Summary Judgment
appeared hastily contrived, incomplete with unresolved issues, reasons
for delay misconstrued, nor could all pleadings in the case be weighed or
understood in the time taken for review.

There was no hearing on

disputed matters, no evidence entered, only attachments to pleadings

are in the record. Judge Sommer did not verify that Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)
prohibits appeal of opening Default Judgment before adjudication of all
claims, neither were the cites of case law submitted by CitiMortgage read
to assure relevance.
In the reading of the Opinion of June 11, 2014, the comments made
by Judge Sommer indicate the time necessary to read all the pleadings
and understand the issues was not taken. Had Judge Sommer actually
read and comprehended the case, not just the docket entries, it is doubtful
he would have put himself in harms way by allowing a forgery as verified
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 29

by the Assignor to remain in the records and be considered by the court.

The Motion for Interlocutory Summary Judgment by Orman requested
CitiMortgage be removed from the case having no interest through the
Assignment of Mortgage, and all previous Motions be dismissed as Moot.
The Assignment of Mortgage (ABA & RR Page 22) dated September
20, 2012 was challenged by Orman, MortgageIT stating having had
nothing whatsoever to do with the execution of that document (ABA &
RR Page 81 11). The only mention of an Assignment of Mortgage in
opinion is in the Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Opinion on page 2, paragraph 2, (Page
59 of this document) referring to an assignment to MERS at settlement
which does not exist, as this Mortgage is a MERS Original Mortgage.
Opinion of the timeliness of recording assignments of June 2007 that
were never recorded is confusing. No discussion is made in opinion of the
Assignment of September 20, 2012, which is barred by the opinion of
Hon. Slomsky in the federal case.
Counsel for CitiMortgage deliberately misled the Court to believe (a)
the Assignment of Mortgage was genuine, and gave standing to enter this
case; (b) that Mr. Orman was indispensable to this case; and (c) no
amendment to the complaint could cure the supposed status of res
judicata. The opposite to each of those statements is true. It was essential
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 30

to CitiMortgage to do this to terminate this case in favor of CitiMortgage,

as the recorded Assignment of Mortgage held by CitiMortgage was
verified as a forgery to the Court by the Assignor.
CitiMortgage entered the case by Praecipe attaching a forged
Assignment of Mortgage, after originally attempting to enter by Petition
and a copy of the endorsed Note (ABA & RR Page 20), then eliminate the
case by claiming a missing necessary party (look no further), claiming res
judicata on all issues because CitiMortgage was a defendant without
recorded interest in a federal case (look no further), sidetracking the
Court to ignore Motions to amend the complaint and the unadjudicated,
forged Assignment of Mortgage. A favorable decision to CitiMortgage can
be construed to validate the forged Assignment of Mortgage as genuine.
The items in common between the federal and state actions are
CitiMortgage as a Defendant (although the status of interest appears
changed, Orman disputes validity of recorded interest and claims
CitiMortgage does not belong in this instant action), issues with MERS
(although different discussions focused on violations of Mortgage and
law), and a desired result of Quiet Title, although in the federal action this
was an abstract issue without MortgageIT as defendant and lack of
original jurisdiction of the federal court.

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 31

CitiMortgage misled the Court as Assignee of the forged Assignment

of Mortgage created September 20, 2012 (ABA & RR Page 22) months
after Judge Slomsky's opinion was docketed.

The Assignment of

Mortgage was a contrivance created to allow CitiMortgage to enter this

case and defraud the Court. The Assignment of Mortgage states it is
assigned from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)
as nominee of MortgageIT who disclaims any participation in the
assignment in any manner whatsoever in responsive pleading.
..MortgageIT was not a party to this assignment and was not
involved in the execution of the September 20, 2012 assignment
whatsoever. MortgageIT had no interest in the Subject Property to
assign. Item 37 Defendant MortgageIT's Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Summary Judgment (ABA & RR
Page 81 11).
That pleading made by MortgageIT regarding the Assignment of
Mortgage limits the Assignment of Mortgage to Statutory Forgery defined
by law, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4101(a)(2) 9, and those uttering it by 18 Pa. C.S.A.
4101(a)(3)9. Orman was surprised the Court did not immediately quiet
the title to the forged Assignment of Mortgage and remove CitiMortgage
9 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4101 Forgery (a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent
to defraud or injure anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be
perpetrated by anyone, the actor: (1) alters any writing of another without his authority; (2)
makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues or transfers any writing so that it purports to
be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or to have been executed at a time or
place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original
when no such original existed; or (3) utters any writing which he knows to be forged in a
manner specified in paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subsection.
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 32

from this case with sanctions following the responsive pleadings of

MortgageIT. Post-opinion contrivances and events cannot be considered
res judicata in any event and must be currently adjudicated.
The issues in this case were not adjudicated in the action before the
federal court as they either did not exist, or the affected party was not
involved in that action. The federal case, Orman v. MortgageIT 2012
WL 1071219 (E.D.PA.) is a misnomer, as MortgageIT was never intended
to be part of that case, and was in the heading in error. The federal case
was against unrecorded current interests in the Mortgage and the related
indebtedness (Note). There was and is no legitimate recorded interest or
claim of those parties as no Assignment of Mortgage was recorded by
December 23, 2007 from MortgageIT after the Mortgage Note was
transferred to the different entities.
The capacity of the parties in this current case is the opposite of that
of the federal case, as these are RECORDED interests. The issues in this
state case are regarding lack of CURRENT interest in the Mortgage, inter
alia, along with violations of law within the Mortgage as recorded, along
with default of the Mortgage by unnamed and unrecorded successors and
assigns of MortgageIT. CitiMortgage is in this case is because of the
forged Assignment of Mortgage, giving illusion of standing of

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 33

CitiMortgage to enter this action. The causes of action are different, the
federal case addressing TILA and RESPA issues, and Fraud, none of
which are part of this action. The fraud in the federal case referenced the
lack of disclosure and explanation in regard to the ramifications of the use
of MERS in this mortgage. The Hon. Sommer fails to see the distinction
between the two cases, as there are no allegations of violations of TILA or
RESPA or Fraud against MortgageIT (except as applies to the Assignment
of Mortgage prior to MortgageIT's assertion of having nothing to do with
the assignment in pleadings), but that the recorded interests are not
current and the recent forgery dated September 20, 2012 as an
Assignment of Mortgage, as well as the unassignability and abandonment
of the mortgage, as opposed to the federal case against the current
interests that were neither written nor recorded, bringing no issues of
recordability, assignability, lack of current interest, or forgery. Filing an
Appeal for issues with the unrecorded interests made no sense, as
Plaintiffs had already achieved most of what they intended. There was no
Assignment of the Mortgage prior to the opening of the Default Judgment
in this case. Therefore, res judicata is misapplied here. Res judicata in
this case might be applied to invalidate an assignment of mortgage
created after the opinion which is barred by that opinion; as that Opinion
(by Slomsky) clearly states MortgageIT had no interest to assign since
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 34

June 23, 2007; and that the mortgage is currently owned by Fannie Mae,
having no recorded interest, all of which effectively invalidates the
recently recorded Assignment of Mortgage by CitiMortgage.
Not addressed in the Summary Judgment and not addressed by the
federal court because MortgageIT was not party to that action, was the
lack of the signed and correctly completed Certificate of Residence
required for the Mortgage (ABA & RR Page 17) to be recorded under 21
Pa. Stat. 62514. A recorded interest in the property that is not current was
not addressed in the federal case as no defendant had a recorded interest.
The Assignment of Mortgage (ABA & RR Page 22) to CitiMortgage
did not exist at the time of the decision by the Hon. Slomsky whose
opinion effectively bars that assignment as written. Res judicata cannot
be a legitimate defense applicable to claims against the Assignment of
Mortgage. On the date of assignment, September 20, 2012, MortgageIT
had no interest in the subject Mortgage for over five years. As MERS as
nominee for MortgageIT assigned the mortgage, the assignment is
worthless. (ABA & RR Page 22) An Assignor cannot assign what the
Assignor does not have or own. The Court did not permit amendment to
the complaint to address this newly contrived Assignment of Mortgage.
In Opinion of June 11, 2014 Judge Sommer states that Orman argues
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 35

the mortgage against her property should mystically disappear. and is an

attempt to reform the mortgage. In Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Opinion, Judge
Sommer stated that In short, Plaintiff cannot make the mortgage go
away, indicating he does not comprehend the Mortgage and the
Assignment of Mortgage carry no value or interest: by law (13 Pa. C.S.A.
3203(b)15), by maxim of law (one cannot give what one does not own); nor
is the recorded mortgage assignable by law (21 Pa. Stat. 62113) as it lacks
assignment from MortgageIT dated June 23, 2007 and recorded before
December 23, 2007. Orman does not attempt to reform this Mortgage, but
seeks Quiet Title against this abandoned Mortgage and now also the forged
Assignment of Mortgage.
MortgageIT stated in hearing on September 19, 2012 and in pleading
that MortgageIT had no interest in the mortgage for over five years, and did
not assign the mortgage on September 20, 2012. Defendant MortgageIT
stated on multiple occasions to have no interest on that date to assign and
stated in pleading (ABA & RR Page 81 11) that MortgageIT did not have
anything to do with the execution of that document.

Apparent in the

Opinion dated June 11, 2014 and the Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Opinion of Judge
Sommer (Page 59 of this brief) is that Judge Sommer is unaware of or
ignoring the Assignment of Mortgage to CitiMortgage. References in the Pa.

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 36

R.A.P. 1925 Opinion to an assignment refers to MERS occurring at

settlement May 30, 2007, which is not an assignment but a direct grant
from the borrowers, and was not challenged as an assignment in any court.
The fraud claim in the federal case was because the borrowers were not
informed of the purpose and use of MERS. There is no such claim in this
state case. It is impossible for the Court to adjudicate this forged
Assignment of Mortgage dated September 20, 2012 to CitiMortgage as res
judicata due to the date of the Assignment months after Opinion by Judge
Slomsky, although barred by that same decision.
Had Judge Sommer read the pleadings in the entirety, or at least the
last one filed, instead of the encapsulated responses and pleadings of
Defendant CitiMortgage, the judge would have understood that Orman
claims: (1) successors of MortgageIT are in default of the mortgage, Article
16, (2) the Assignment of Mortgage to CitiMortgage is an obvious forgery
based on the pleadings of defendant MortgageIT and law, 18 Pa. Stat.
41019, and CitiMortgage must be removed from this case and the record
of the Assignment of Mortgage quieted, (3) that the mortgage itself is
deficient (incomplete, lacking certifications required by 21 Pa. Stat. 62514
for recording), (4) the way MERS is intended and used in the Mortgage is
violation of multiple civil and criminal statutes and codes of Pennsylvania,

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 37

(5) the recorded mortgage is abandoned and a nullity in the records of the
Recorder of Deeds;

instead of producing unprofessional remarks like

Orman argues the mortgage should mystically disappear, where the law,
not mysticism, was argued.
The Assignment of Mortgage from MortgageIT dated September 20,
2012 when MortgageIT had no interest whatsoever to assign for five years
cannot convey any interest whatsoever to CitiMortgage or anyone else.
Failure of the Assignee of the Mortgage in 2007 to record assignment in a
timely manner as required by law removes the ability to claim a recorded
interest by statute and is default of Article 16 of the Mortgage.

The

Assignees of the Mortgage made the decision not to record all the transfers
of interest in the mortgage loan as required by law 21 Pa. Stat 35111, 44412,
and 62113, and were aware of the consequences. Judge Sommer does not
foresee that by not quieting the title, he could be putting in harms way of
criminal charges and civil damages anyone who would use that Assignment
of Mortgage dated September 20, 2012 to attempt to prove beneficial
interest.
Regardless of whether the Default Judgment should have been
opened, or whether or not MERS as used in a mortgage violates law, or
whether the successors of the Mortgagee have defaulted on the Mortgage,

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 38

the recorded Mortgage and Assignment of Mortgage are only worth the
paper printed upon, having no other value. While the Mortgage may have
been a valid lien once, there has been no recorded beneficiary of that lien
since June 23, 2007. The Mortgage has gone away on its own by the
decisions of those (ABA & RR page 20) to whom it was assigned in 2007.
This Summary Judgment demonstrates the lack of the thoroughness
and preparation reasonably necessary, diligence, fairness, objectiveness,
and impartiality of the Hon. Sommer in the face of expediency. Ruling in
judgment, and writing an opinion without understanding the issues or facts
in the case displays the lack of diligence. The sarcasm in the Opinion
displays prejudice and lack of respect for the Plaintiff, an unrepresented
party, and the bias of the Judge. In addition to all the above, the Court did
not quiet the title against the forgery of the Assignment of Mortgage
through the Motion for Interlocutory Summary Judgment (ABA & RR Page
112) and remove CitiMortgage from this case as requested in Motion.
Failure to quiet the title against a verified forgery and remove the offender
from the case is abuse of discretion of the Court, or even Misprision of
Felony.
SHOULD AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT BEEN PERMITTED?
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule #16 states:
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 39

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the
court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.
There was a new, unexpected defendant who entered the action by
Praecipe with Assignment of Mortgage (ABA & RR Page 22) recorded
after the opening of the Default Judgment from MortgageIT claiming no
interest for years. Orman did not anticipate CitiMortgage as a defendant
in this case nor did Orman add CitiMortgage to this case. Orman was not
afforded opportunity to amend the original complaint.
Orman requested Amendment to the Complaint in Motions three times.
(ABA & RR Pages 45, 84, 112) Insufficient wording in the Motions or
deficient form is not a reason to deny justice. Failure of the Court to allow
Amendment to the complaint following the addition of a surprise defendant
with or without using forged documentation to enter the case is abuse of
the discretion of the Court, and prejudice against unrepresented parties.
DOES USING MERS IN A MORTGAGE VIOLATE STATUTES?
The only purpose for using MERS as Mortgagee in mortgages in
Pennsylvania, to violate compulsory recording statutes in Title 21 of the
Pennsylvania statutes, is found in MERS pleadings in another case:
The investor continues to own and hold the promissory note, but
under the MERS System, the servicing entity only holds
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 40

contractual servicing rights and MERS holds legal title to the

mortgage as nominee for the benefit of the investor (or owner and
holder of the note) and not for itself. MERS does not hold any
interest (legal or beneficial) in the promissory notes that are
secured by such mortgages or in any servicing rights associated
with the mortgage loan. The debtor on the note owes no obligation
to MERS and does not pay MERS on the note. MERS holds legal
title to the mortgage for the benefit of the owner of the note. In
effect, the mortgage lien becomes immobilized by MERS
continuing to hold the mortgage lien when the note is sold from
one investor to another via an endorsement and delivery of the note
or the transfer of servicing rights from one MERS member to
another MERS member via a purchase and sale agreement which is
a non-recordable contract right. Legal title to the mortgage remains
in MERS after such transfers and is tracked by MERS in its
electronic registry. [MERS Appellate Brief, MERS v Nebraska
Dept of Banking 270 Neb. 529; 704 N.W.2d 784; 2005 Neb. LEXIS
177 (Ne. 2005), Nebraska Court of Appeals, at pages 16, 17]
While the transfer of servicing rights is a non-recordable contract
right, the sale and transfer of interest in the Note is required to be
recorded in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Hon. J. C. Joyner

recently ordered:
... Defendants' are declared to be obligated to create and record
written documents memorializing the transfers of debt/
promissory notes which are secured by real estate mortgages in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for all such debt transfers past,
present and future in the Office for the Recording of Deeds in the
County where such property is situate... inasmuch as such
debt/mortgage note transfers are conveyances within the meaning
of Pennsylvania law, the failure to so document and record is
violative of the Pennsylvania Recording Statute(s). (Doc. 119
Nancy Becker, Recorder of Deeds of Montgomery County v.
MERS Corp., Inc. 904 F. Supp. 2D 436 (2012)
While the Hons. Slomsky and Sommer stated in opinions that no
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 41

court has ever held the way MERS in a Mortgage is unlawful, statute
law could not have been considered in those opinions for the purpose
and use of MERS. First, MERS is not a creditor and can in no manner
comply with the definition of Mortgagee in 21 Pa. Stat. 711. Next,
Pennsylvania has criminal statutes and codes, 18 Pa C.S.A. 4103, 18
Pa. C.S.A. 491110which define concealing and withholding documents
from public recording or publicly recording false documents proposed
in MERS Appellate Brief a third degree felony with severe penalties.
Third, using the private electronic database for recording transfers of
interest in the Mortgage Notes as opposed to recording assignment
documents in the county offices of the Recorder of Deeds violates not
only the criminal statutes of Forgery and Fraud 9, Tampering10, but also
the civil statutes under Compulsory Recording Statutes (21 Pa. Stat.
351,11 444,12 62113) in Pennsylvania.
10 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4103. Fraudulent destruction, removal or concealment of recordable
instruments. A person commits a felony of the third degree if, with intent to deceive or injure
anyone, he destroys, or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other
writing for which the law provides public recording.
18 Pa C.S.A. 4911. Tampering with public records or information (a) Offense defined.-A person commits an offense if he:(1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration
of, any record, document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by, the government for
information or record, or required by law to be kept by others for information of the
government; (2) makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be
false, and with intent that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records referred to in
paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (3) intentionally and unlawfully destroys, conceals,
removes or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of any such record, document or
thing.
11 21 Pa. Stat. 351:All deeds, conveyances, contracts, and other instruments of writing
wherein it shall be the intention of the parties executing the same to grant, bargain, sell, and
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 42

The lack of multiple stare decisis opinions to cite that the way MERS
is used in a mortgage violates law, as Orman has already cited Nancy
Becker, Recorder of Deeds of Montgomery County v. MERS Corp., Inc.
904 F. Supp. 2D 436 (2012) above, does not give license to continue
violating the Pennsylvania civil and criminal codes and statutes when the
law is clear. The law and statutes are clear, and the purpose and intent in
the use of MERS is clearly to violate those laws and statutes, which were
violated; and MERS as Mortgagee cannot be removed from the Mortgage.
The Mortgage appears ILLEGAL and VOID ab initio, created with
purpose and intent to violate the Compulsory Recording Statutes of
Pennsylvania, the federal Truth in Lending Act, and the Fraud, Forgery,
and Tampering10 statutes thereafter accomplished:
..an agreement which violates a provision of a statute, or which
cannot be performed without violation of such a provision, is
illegal and void: Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Cameron, 280 Pa.
458, 466, 124 A. 638, 640 (contract in violation of the Interstate
Commerce Act); Kimble v. Wilson, 352 Pa. 275, 281, 282, 42 A.
convey any lands, tenements, or hereditaments situate in this Commonwealth, upon being
acknowledged by the parties executing the same or proved in the manner provided by the
laws of this Commonwealth, shall be recorded in the office for the recording of deeds in the
county where such lands, tenements, and hereditaments are situate. Every such deed,
conveyance, contract, or other instrument of writing which shall not be acknowledged or
proved and recorded, as aforesaid, shall be adjudged fraudulent and void as to any
subsequent bona fide purchaser or mortgagee or holder of any judgment, duly entered in the
prothonotarys office of the county in which the lands, tenements, or hereditaments are
situate, without actual or constructive notice unless such deed, conveyance, contract, or
instrument of writing shall be recorded, as aforesaid, before the recording of the deed or
conveyance or the entry of the judgment under which such subsequent purchaser,
mortgagee, or judgment creditor shall claim. Nothing contained in this act shall be
construed to repeal or modify any law providing for the lien of purchase money mortgages.
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 43

2d526, 529 (contract violating the Public Utility Law) Dippel et

al. v. Brunozzi, 365 Pa. 264 Pa: Supreme Court 1950.
Failure to quiet title for MERS as Mortgagee in a mortgage, used as
intended to violate the civil recording and criminal statutes, condones the
violation of multiple Pennsylvania statutes and criminal felony practices,
and is an abuse of judicial discretion.
HAVE SUCCESSORS DEFAULTED ON THE MORTGAGE?
The issues addressed in the opinions and decisions by Hon. Joyner
were clear; applicable to all holders of mortgage notes:
In contrast, 21 Pa. Stat. 351, which makes recording of certain
types of documents compulsory, appears under the heading
NECESSITY
OF
RECORDING
AND
COMPULSORY
RECORDING. Accordingly, we conclude that all conveyances
shall be recorded, 21 Pa. Stat. 351, means that all conveyances
shall be recorded. Even were an alternate reading permissible, the
Legislatures organization of the statutes respecting recording of
different categories of documents show that it intended precisely
this result.
.. Defendants' are declared to be obligated to create and record
written documents memorializing the transfers of debt/promissory
notes which are secured by real estate mortgages in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for all such debt transfers past,
present and future in the Office for the Recording of Deeds in the
County where such property is situate... inasmuch as such
debt/mortgage note transfers are conveyances within the meaning
of Pennsylvania law, the failure to so document and record is
violative of the Pennsylvania Recording Statute(s). Nancy Becker,
Recorder of Deeds of Montgomery County v. MERS Corp., Inc.
904 F. Supp. 2D 436 (2012)

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 44

Recorders of Deeds and victim homeowners are equally damaged by

the clouded, destructed titles caused by failure to timely record
assignments of mortgage. Assignees who did not record the transfer of
interest in the Note by a written Assignment of Mortgage as required by
the recording laws in Pennsylvania are in violation of law and default of
the Mortgage agreement Article 16 requiring compliance with all local
and federal laws. (ABA & RR Page 13). Pennsylvania has Compulsory
Recording statutes under 21 Pa. Stat. 35111, 44412,, 621,13.
The Mortgage Assignees have defaulted on the Mortgage by
violations of law. Plaintiff is entitled to relief requested. Failure of the
Court to quiet the title is abuse of judicial discretion.
IS THE SUBJECT MORTGAGE RECORDABLE?
Pennsylvania has a Certificate of Residence requirement, giving the
Recorder of Deeds instruction to refuse to record certain documents
12 21 Pa. Stat. 444: All deeds and conveyances, or whereby the title to the same may
be in any way affected in law or equity, shall be recorded in the office for the
recording of deeds where such lands, .. are lying and being, within ninety days after the
execution of such deeds or conveyance, and every such deed and conveyance that shall at
any time after the passage of this act be made and executed in this commonwealth, and
which shall not be proved and recorded as aforesaid, shall be adjudged fraudulent and
void..
13 21 Pa. Stat. 621: No deed or mortgage, or defeasible deed, in the nature of mortgages,
hereafter to be made, shall be good or sufficient to convey or pass any freehold or
inheritance, or to grant any estate therein for life or years, unless such deed be
acknowledged or proved and recorded within six months after the date thereof, where
such lands lie, as hereinbefore directed for other deeds.
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 45

without a completed and signed Certificate of Residence as the law

demands, 21 Pa. Stat. 62514. The Certificate of Residence on the subject
mortgage does not contain correct information and is not signed as
required for recording by law. (ABA & RR Page 17)
Failure to Quiet Title against a recorded non-compliant mortgage,
deficient and not recordable by law, is abuse of judicial discretion,
indicating a lack of knowledge of the law.
DO FORGED DOCUMENTS REMAIN PUBLICLY RECORDED?
Pleadings by CitiMortgage that Orman has no standing to question the
Assignment of Mortgage as Orman is not a party to said assignment are
not appropriate in this Quiet Title action brought by Orman. This action
under Pa. R.C.P. Rule 1061(b)(3) is specifically for purposes of questioning
14

21 Pa. Stat. 625: Certificate of residence of mortgagee or assignee: For the purpose
of obtaining with accuracy the precise residence of all mortgagees, assignees, and persons
to whom interest is payable on articles of agreement, it shall be the duty of the recorder of
deeds in each county, whenever a mortgage, assignment, or agreement given to secure the
payment of money, shall be presented to him for record, to refuse the same, unless the said
mortgage, assignment, or agreement has attached thereto, and made part of said mortgage,
assignment, or agreement, a certificate signed by said mortgagee, assignee, or person
entitled to interest, or his, her or their duly authorized attorney or agent, setting forth the
precise residence of such mortgagee, assignee, or person entitled to interest; said
certificate to be recorded with said mortgage, assignment, or agreement; and therefrom the
said recorder shall prepare and deliver, at stated intervals, to the proper Board of Revision
of Taxes, or other officials charged with the assessment of State tax, a list of said
mortgages, assignments, and agreements, with the names and residences of said
mortgagees, assignees, or persons entitled to interest, with the amount and date of said
mortgages, assignments, and articles of agreement, with the date of recording and the
properties upon which the debts are secured.
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 46

validity and necessity of certain recorded documents that are in the

Recorder of Deeds records of the Orman property.
The Assignment of Mortgage to CitiMortgage states as being
assigned by MERS as nominee for MortgageIT (ABA & RR Page 22)
several months after opinion and decision by Judge Slomsky in the federal
case. The opinion by the Hon. Slomsky affirms that MortgageIT
transferred the Mortgage Loan to CitiMortgage June 23, 2007, who then
transferred the Mortgage Loan to Fannie Mae on June 26, 2007. This
opinion effectively bars any assignment from MERS as Nominee of
MortgageIT dated after June 23, 2007.

MortgageIT attached to

MortgageIT's Petition to Open Default Judgment a Disclaimer of Interest,

stating in court hearing MortgageIT had transferred its interest in this
mortgage on June 23, 2007 (ABA & RR Page 145 Lines 13, 14) and in
pleading: ... was not a party to this assignment and was not involved with
the execution of the September 20, 2012 assignment whatsoever.
MortgageIT had no interest to assign (ABA & RR Page 8111).
CitiMortgage stated in CitiMortgage Response to Plaintiff's
Statement of Facts, November 29, 2012, (ABA & RR Page 73 22 and 23)
that Fannie Mae (FNMA) assigned the mortgage. Fannie Mae does not
appear on the Assignment of Mortgage. Fannie Mae is incapable of
creating Assignment of Mortgage, appearing nowhere in the index of the
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 47

Recorder of Deeds for this property. According to 21 Pa. Stat. 621 13, an
assignment not recorded within six months following transfer of the
Mortgage Loan cannot be used to transfer any interest to another party.
Fannie Mae still owns the mortgage loan, as indicated on its website
http://www.fanniemae.com. The Note (ABA & RR Page 20) was not
endorsed to CitiMortgage from Fannie Mae, indicating the mortgage loan
was not transferred from Fannie Mae to CitiMortgage. There was intent to
deceive, for if Fannie Mae assigned the Mortgage to CitiMortgage, Fannie
Mae would be named on the assignment documents.

The law defines

the Assignment of Mortgage to CitiMortgage as a forged document (18 Pa.

C.S.A. 41019). It is illegal under 18 Pa C.S.A. 491110 to publicly record
forged or fraudulent documents. Failure to Quiet Title against a verified
forgery is abuse of judicial discretion or even Misprision of Felony.
IS A MORTGAGE WITHOUT CURRENT RECORDED
BENEFICIARY ABANDONED?
Under 21 Pa. Stat. 62113, an assignment of mortgage that is not
recorded within six months cannot convey interest to another party. The
assignment dated September 20, 2012 cannot convey any interest by
multiple statutes, 21 Pa. Stat.621 and 13 Pa. C.S.A. 3203(b)15.
MortgageIT had no interest to assign on September 20, 2012 for five years.

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 48

The party assigned the mortgage June 23, 2007 and successors made no
recorded assignment before December 23, 2007. There is no creditor with
current interest and capacity recorded to assign or release the Mortgage.
Failure of the Court to quiet the title against a mortgage abandoned for five
years is abuse of discretion of the Court.
IS THIS MORTGAGE A NULLITY IN THE PUBLIC RECORD?
Without a recorded creditor mortgagee with a current interest, an
action to Quiet Title is the remedy for a Mortgagor as an action for
Foreclosure is to the Mortgagee. The Original Mortgagee had no interest
for five years on the date the Assignment of Mortgage was created to
CitiMortgage, rendering that Assignment as worthless as the recorded
Mortgage15, 16. As no party is recorded with the capacity to assign or
release the recorded Mortgage, the recorded Mortgage has become a
cloud on the title of the property and a nullity under the law. Under the
Uniform Commercial Code in Pennsylvania, 13 Pa. Con. St. 3203(b)15
and 951416, only the current recorded creditor can assign or release any
15 13 Pa. C.S.A. 3203: TRANSFER OF INSTRUMENT; RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY
TRANSFER:(b)Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation,
vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any
right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due
course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee
engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.
16 13 Pa. C.S.A. 9514 Assignment of powers of secured party of record. (c) Assignment
of record of mortgage.--An assignment of record of a security interest in a fixture covered
by a record of a mortgage which is effective as a financing statement filed as a fixture
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 49

instrument securing a debt.

Failure of the Court to Quiet Title against a nullity in the public
records is abuse of discretion of the Court.
8. CONCLUSION
The entire real estate commercial community depends on the
information recorded in the offices of the Recorder of Deeds to be
accurate without exception as the law mandates. The issues offered and
argued here have not been brought or adjudicated before by any Court.
Orman has been damaged by the slander and cloud on the title to
her property, caused by the situations listed above. When a homeowner
Mortgagor is in default, the court would upon due process issue an order
for foreclosure. The Mortgagee's (MortgageIT) assigns and successors
have Defaulted on the agreement, the Mortgagor (Orman) requests and
expects similar accommodation and relief, by way of an Order to Quiet
Title against the mortgage.
The recorded party, MortgageIT, admits in pleading and
documentation to having no interest in the property since June 23, 2007.
Leslie-Eve Orman demands her property title be Quieted to foreclose
filing under section 9502(c) (relating to record of mortgage as financing statement) may
be made only by an assignment of record of the mortgage in the manner provided by law
of this Commonwealth other than this title.
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 50

against the Assignee of the forged Assignment of Mortgage, Appellee

CitiMortgage,

and

the

Mortgagee,

Appellee

MortgageIT;

in

fact,

Pennsylvania Statutes, United States laws and case law require it. Orman
requests the Court consider each question individually and order:
1) The Assignment of Mortgage dated September 20, 2012 to CitiMortgage
is a forgery and void. CitiMortgage, assigns and successors are to be
forever barred from asserting any right, lien, title or interest in the land
inconsistent with the interest or claim of the plaintiff set forth in the
complaint. The Recorder of Deeds, Chester County be ordered to
cancel of record and mark void the Assignment of Mortgage recorded
on October 10, 2012 in Book number 8533 on Page 858 as Document
number 11215674 to reflect the above.
2) The recorded Mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems as
nominee of MortgageIT is unrecordable lacking completed Certificate
of Residence, a nullity in the records of the Recorder of Deeds Chester
County without a recorded party with capacity to assign or release the
record, and is a void agreement for the use of Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems with intent and practice to violate Pennsylvania
Compulsory Recording Statutes under Title 21 and Fraud, Forgery and
Tampering statutes under 18 Pa. C.S.A. MortgageIT, assigns and
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 51

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 52

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 53

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 54

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 55

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 56

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 57

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 58

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 59

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 60

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 61

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 62

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 63

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 64

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 65

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 66

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 67

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 68

11. RESTATED FOOT NOTES AND END NOTES

1. Plaintiff and her spouse filed an action in the District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Orman v. MortgageIT, 2012 WL 1071219
(E.D.PA.)) against the unrecorded interests in the Mortgage (MortgageIT
was included by error and was removed), CitiMortgage, the purported
servicer of the Mortgage, and The Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae/FNMA) the alleged true owner of the Plaintiffs
Mortgage, for violations of TILA and RESPA. In the conclusions, Judge
Slomsky concluded the Ormans had not sufficiently stated a cause of action
under TILA and RESPA.
2. Orman filed Motion to Deny MortgageIT Petition to Open Default Judgment
and responded in Objection to petition of CitiMortgage and in hearing to
open default judgment vehemently and energetically objected to Petition to
Open Default Judgment to preserve Question 1.
3. Orman response challenged pleading of CitiMortgage, and Motion to
Amend Complaint to preserve Questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (Item 23,
Motion to Amend Complaint, paragraphs 19-79 (ABA & RR Page 45 et sec.
ignored/ dismissed by the court).
4. Orman response challenged pleading of CitiMortgage, and Motion to
Amend Complaint to preserve Questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (Item #42
Plaintiff 2nd Motion to Amend pages 7-27, ABA & RR Page 90 et sec.
ignored/ dismissed by the court).
5. Item #37 Defendant MortgageIT's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for judgment on the Pleadings or, in
the alternative Summary Judgment (ABA & RR Page 81 11 ignored/
dismissed by the court).
6. Item #35 Defendant CitiMortgage Def. Response dated 11/29/2012-Pg 8
22 (ABA & RR Page 73 22).
7.

Orman response challenged pleading of CitiMortgage, and Motion to

Amend Complaint to preserve Questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, (Item #52 Brief
in Support of Motion for Interlocutory Judgment pages (ABA & RR Pages
116-117 ignored/dismissed by the court)

8.

Orman response challenged pleading of CitiMortgage, and Motion to

Amend Complaint to preserve Questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (Item #56, pg 3,
4- Brief in Support of Motion, ABA & RR Pages 116-117 ignored/dismissed
by the court)
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 69

9. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4101 Forgery (a)Offense defined.--A person is guilty of forgery

if, with intent to defraud or injure anyone, or with knowledge that he is
facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the actor: (1)
alters any writing of another without his authority; (2) makes, completes,
executes, authenticates, issues or transfers any writing so that it purports to
be the act of another who did not authorize that act, or to have been
executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in
fact the case, or to be a copy of an original when no such original existed;
or (3) utters any writing which he knows to be forged in a manner specified
in paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subsection.
10. 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4103. Fraudulent destruction, removal or concealment of
recordable instruments. A person commits a felony of the third degree if,
with intent to deceive or injure anyone, he destroys, or conceals any will,
deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law
provides public recording.
18 Pa C.S.A. 4911. Tampering with public records or information (a)
Offense defined.--A person commits an offense if he:(1) knowingly makes a
false entry in, or false alteration of, any record, document or thing
belonging to, or received or kept by, the government for information or
record, or required by law to be kept by others for information of the
government; (2) makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing
knowing it to be false, and with intent that it be taken as a genuine part of
information or records referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (3)
intentionally and unlawfully destroys, conceals, removes or otherwise
impairs the verity or availability of any such record, document or thing.
11. 21 Pa. Stat. 351:All deeds, conveyances, contracts, and other
instruments of writing wherein it shall be the intention of the parties
executing the same to grant, bargain, sell, and convey any lands, tenements,
or hereditaments situate in this Commonwealth, upon being acknowledged
by the parties executing the same or proved in the manner provided by the
laws of this Commonwealth, shall be recorded in the office for the recording
of deeds in the county where such lands, tenements, and hereditaments are
situate. Every such deed, conveyance, contract, or other instrument of
writing which shall not be acknowledged or proved and recorded, as
aforesaid, shall be adjudged fraudulent and void as to any subsequent bona
fide purchaser or mortgagee or holder of any judgment, duly entered in the
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 70

Prothonotarys office of the county in which the lands, tenements, or

hereditaments are situate, without actual or constructive notice unless such
deed, conveyance, contract, or instrument of writing shall be recorded, as
aforesaid, before the recording of the deed or conveyance or the entry of the
judgment under which such subsequent purchaser, mortgagee, or judgment
creditor shall claim. Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to
repeal or modify any law providing for the lien of purchase money
mortgages.
12. 21 Pa. Stat. 444: All deeds and conveyances, or whereby the title to
the same may be in any way affected in law or equity, shall be recorded
in the office for the recording of deeds where such lands, .. are lying and
being, within ninety days after the execution of such deeds or conveyance,
and every such deed and conveyance that shall at any time after the passage
of this act be made and executed in this commonwealth, and which shall not
be proved and recorded as aforesaid, shall be adjudged fraudulent and
void..
13. 21 Pa. Stat. 621: No deed or mortgage, or defeasible deed, in the nature
of mortgages, hereafter to be made, shall be good or sufficient to convey or
pass any freehold or inheritance, or to grant any estate therein for life or
years, unless such deed be acknowledged or proved and recorded within six
months after the date thereof, where such lands lie, as hereinbefore directed
for other deeds.
14. 21 Pa. Stat. 625: Certificate of residence of mortgagee or assignee: For
the purpose of obtaining with accuracy the precise residence of all
mortgagees, assignees, and persons to whom interest is payable on articles
of agreement, it shall be the duty of the recorder of deeds in each county,
whenever a mortgage, assignment, or agreement given to secure the
payment of money, shall be presented to him for record, to refuse the same,
unless the said mortgage, assignment, or agreement has attached thereto,
and made part of said mortgage, assignment, or agreement, a certificate
signed by said mortgagee, assignee, or person entitled to interest, or his, her
or their duly authorized attorney or agent, setting forth the precise residence
of such mortgagee, assignee, or person entitled to interest; said certificate
to be recorded with said mortgage, assignment, or agreement; and
therefrom the said recorder shall prepare and deliver, at stated intervals, to
the proper Board of Revision of Taxes, or other officials charged with the
assessment of State tax, a list of said mortgages, assignments, and
agreements, with the names and residences of said mortgagees, assignees,
or persons entitled to interest, with the amount and date of said mortgages,
2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 71

assignments, and articles of agreement, with the date of recording and the
properties upon which the debts are secured.
15. 13 Pa. C.S.A. 3203: TRANSFER OF INSTRUMENT; RIGHTS
ACQUIRED BY TRANSFER:(b)Transfer of an instrument, whether or not
the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the
transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due
course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by
a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee
engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.
16. 13 Pa. C.S.A. 9514 ASSIGNMENT OF POWERS OF SECURED PARTY
OF RECORD. (c) Assignment of record of mortgage.--An assignment of
record of a security interest in a fixture covered by a record of a mortgage
which is effective as a financing statement filed as a fixture filing under
section 9502(c) (relating to record of mortgage as financing statement) may
be made only by an assignment of record of the mortgage in the manner
provided by law of this Commonwealth other than this title.

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 72

2178 EDA 2014

Orman v MortgageIT

Page 73