Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bayview Loan Servicing v. Hill, J.
Citation: Not availableDocket: 740 WDA 2016
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; December 28, 2016; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Joy M. Hill and Fredrick Hill appeal a summary judgment favoring Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC regarding a foreclosure action on their property at 33 Climax Street, Pittsburgh. The Appellants executed a mortgage with Progressive Home Federal Savings and Loan Association on September 1, 1999, securing a loan of $32,000, which was later assigned to Bayview on December 19, 2006. After filing for bankruptcy on November 30, 2009, the bankruptcy court discharged their unsecured debts on April 30, 2010. The Appellants ceased payments on the mortgage in February 2015, prompting Bayview to initiate foreclosure in August 2015. Bayview filed a motion for summary judgment on January 4, 2016, which the trial court granted on April 21, 2016, concluding that the bankruptcy did not discharge the mortgage claim. The trial court awarded Bayview an in rem judgment of $30,218.92 with interest. The Appellants argue that Bayview's right to foreclose was negated by their bankruptcy discharge and question the authenticity of Bayview's claim to the mortgage and payment history. The court found the Appellants' arguments unclear and lacking legal support, noting the appeal brief was prepared by a non-attorney volunteer. The court affirmed the trial court's decision. Appellants, representing themselves pro se, must adequately present and develop their appellate claims, as established in Smathers v. Smathers. The court clarifies that while it will interpret pro se filings liberally, lack of legal training does not afford any special advantage, and petitioners must bear the risk of their inexperience. Claims that are poorly developed or lack legal citations will be considered waived. The court outlines that for summary judgment, a judgment can be granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact, viewing the evidence favorably for the non-moving party and ensuring that any doubts are resolved against the moving party. A bankruptcy discharge voids personal liability judgments but does not affect the creditor's right to foreclose on the mortgage, as confirmed by relevant case law. In this instance, the Appellants' bankruptcy discharge did not prevent Appellee from pursuing foreclosure. The Appellants failed to present a solid argument regarding Appellee's ownership of the property and did not substantiate claims about improper accounting of mortgage payments, leading to the waiver of these issues. Consequently, the trial court's ruling that the property remained subject to the mortgage and its grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee was deemed correct, with no error of law or abuse of discretion found. The order was affirmed.