Subject Matter Jurisdiction | 100,000+ Foreclosures Defective in Pennsylvania According to State Superior Court

“Since the Superior Court has now ruled that this Act 91 letter is wrong … the foreclosures that have happened in the past are a problem and for sure no more foreclosures should go forward if that deficient letter is in people’s files”


Halt foreclosures on homes due to paperwork errors, group says

Housing activists are calling on Pennsylvania banks and sheriffs to temporarily halt all home foreclosures, saying a paperwork error could save thousands of people their homes.

The state Superior Court on Jan. 30 ruled in favor of three women facing foreclosure who claimed they were not notified, as required by law, that they could have a face-to-face meeting with their mortgage holders to try to resolve outstanding payments.

The Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency issued more than 100,000 such “Act 91” forms from 1999 through 2008 that did not contain that notification, their lawyer Michael Malakoff said.

That means they, too, could get relief from courts. Another of his pro-bono clients, Kathy Todd of Lincoln Place, was due to go through a sheriff’s sale two weeks from now before it was halted due to the decision.

Rest here…

From the ruling…

This is an appeal from an order that sustained Appellee’s “Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Sheriff’s Sale.” We affirm.

The relevant background underlying this matter can be summarized in the following manner. In October of 2006, Appellant filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure against Appellee. According to the complaint, Appellee owns a home subject to a mortgage for which Appellant is the mortgagee. Appellant averred that Appellee’s mortgage was in default due to Appellee’s failure to pay her monthly mortgage costs. The parties eventually agreed to settle the matter. In short, the parties agreed to enter a judgment in favor of Appellant for $217,508.81 together with interest. They further agreed that, so long as Appellee made regular payments to Appellant, Appellant would not execute on the judgment. The trial court approved the parties’ settlement on May 7, 2009.

On April 5, 2010, Appellant filed an affidavit of default wherein it alleged that Appellee had defaulted on her payment obligations. The following day, Appellant filed a praecipe for writ of execution. On August 2, 2010, the subject property was sold by sheriff’s sale; Appellant was the successful bidder.

On August 31, 2010, Appellee filed a document which she entitled “Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Sheriff’s Sale.” Appellee contended that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter because Appellant failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Homeowner’s Emergency Mortgage Act, 35 P.S. §§ 1680.401c et seq. (“Act 91”). More specifically, Appellee maintained that the Act 91 notice she received from Appellant failed to inform her that she had thirty days to have a face-to-face meeting with Appellant. After holding a hearing, the trial court agreed with Appellee that the Act 91 notice was deficient. The court issued an order setting aside the sheriff’s sale and the judgment; the order also dismissed Appellant’s complaint without prejudice.

Act 91 contains no language that suggests that an Act 91 notice which fails to advise a mortgagor that the mortgagor can meet with the mortgagee will suffice so long as, during the course of the mortgage foreclosure litigation, the mortgagor cannot prove that he or she was prejudiced by the deficient notice. In fact, Act 91 explicitly states that, before a mortgagee can even commence a mortgage foreclosure action, it must give the mortgagor the notice described in Section 1680.403c; Subsection 1680.403c(b)(1) clearly and unambiguously mandates that the notice must inform a mortgagor, inter alia, that the mortgagor can meet face-to-face with the mortgagee.

We conclude that the trial court did not make an error of law or abuse its discretion by sustaining Appellee’s “Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Sheriff’s Sale.” In conjunction with its ruling, the court properly set aside the sheriff’s sale, vacated the judgment, and dismissed Appellant’s complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order.

Order affirmed.


From Wikipedia

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases.

Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.

To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (subjectam) and either personal (personam) or territorial (locum) jurisdiction.

Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction, and adequate notice are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.

Full opinion below…




6 Responses to “Subject Matter Jurisdiction | 100,000+ Foreclosures Defective in Pennsylvania According to State Superior Court”
  1. I was curious if you were aware of the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6?

    Rule 1.6 made it illegal to prosecute injustice in the United States. A ‘law’ in every state enacted by the state Supreme Court results in an unconstitutional loss of rights and privileges of a litigant victim when an act of injustice occurs in a courtroom. (In Civil, Criminal or Family Courts)

    The ‘law’ makes it illegal for any prosecutor, district attorney or attorney general to prosecute the crime – because it
    – would affect the integrity of the judiciary,
    – would reveal the prosecutorial misconduct of their own office, or
    – would expose individual liability.

    The victim is left with no recourse, or escape. They are bullied and harassed by the courts until one of three possible outcomes results. Loss of EVERYTHING in their life, prison, or suicide.

    There is nothing any judge can do to address the injustice. This is not judges protecting their own. It is a violation of Rule 1.6 if the judge even tries to address the injustice. Their judicial integrity is sacrificed. This angers the judge who then seems to take it out further on the victim.

    When the act which caused the injustice is known and exposed (even in court) the damage to the victim worsens. The injustice grows each time the victim appears in court because no lawyer or judge may acknowledge or address the injustice or resolve the matter.

    The overall result is abuse of power under color of law. In criminal courts the prosecutor’s aggressive misconduct is ignored. All ‘lawful’, but unconstitutional – as they are mandated to never reveal it or they are quickly disciplined and discredited. It cannot be dealt with until the litigant has his constitutional rights restored. But the victim would have to figure out how they lost their rights – and there is NO ONE TO HELP. (They made helping the victim of injustice illegal. No lawyer may participate. If they try, they are disciplined.)

    The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 is in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Plaintiffs have lawfully petitioned the court and served the challenge on every US Attorney General to address a constitutional calamity which has ‘LAWFULLY BUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY’ persisted in the United State for decades.

    Each state lost the ability to address the injustice of their own courts, and mandated that no lawyer, attorney general or district attorney invite the federal government to investigate.

    Each time the Federal Government has acted to address injustice and corruption of any state court, that state’s Supreme Court has modified Rule 1.6 to close the loophole. This leaves a trail which exposes the corruption caused by this ‘law’ which perverts the entire justice system.

    Kids for Cash is one huge example in Pennsylvania. No one could stop it until a judge violated Rule 1.6 and reported it. Judge Ann Lokuta was disciplined and removed from the bench for doing the right thing.

    A massive example is the foreclosure crisis nationwide, where a fraud upon the court – a forged and false mortgage note or deed – resulted in the actual fraud being ‘lawfully’ ignored by the court while people everywhere lost their homes. It wasn’t necessarily the banks that caused the crisis. It was the lawyers who committed the initial fraud upon the court which could not be addressed.

    The victims of injustice lost their home because of a deliberate injustice and the mandate by Rule 1.6 that no one reveal it.

    Rule 1.6 made it illegal for a lawyer to fix this crisis. It took two pro se defendants to find the needle in haystack of injustice… all deliberately and intentionally caused by the author of the ‘law’ … The American Bar Association.

    The same unconstitutional law, same number, same name, in every state.

    Read more at 544341845_1380969403


    The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6
    Eastern District of Pennsylvania # 13-4614 (2-13-cv-04614-TON)
    Third Circuit Court of Appeals # 13-4591

    Rule 1.6 refers to the Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6 – CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION unlawfully enacted into ‘law’ by each state Supreme Court. Unlawfully enacted because it results in the denial of rights and privileges protected by the United States Constitution.

  2. Beth A> says:

    Despite the fact that the banksters once again blatantly and maliciously disregarded this state’s requirement, homeowners incur additional legal fees and banksters will not have to taken to task. They seem to rule our country and that thought makes me SO PISSED.

  3. Deadbeat says:

    it’s a mere “technicality”..

  4. Ali says:

    100,000″ paperwork errors, gve me a break! this is getting so insane. Put these too big to jail banks into recievership and give the people back there homes. Nobody should have been able to “cash in on the American dream” now the “American nightmare”!!!!!!!! Are they too stupid to see what is going on or is it that they are trying to cash in on other peoples misery. Thank God I reported BOA to the worthless OCC or I would never have had proof that they turned me down. What they would’ve had was a whole new set of paperwork and signitures to cut and paste. Audit, Audit, Audit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. leapfrog says:

    So how can the banksters and fraudclosure mills sweep this one under the rug? Is this just more “sloppy paperwork” and ONCE AGAIN no one will be prosecuted for willful, malicious and intentional perjury, fraud and theft?

Leave a Reply