J-S36002-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
CHRISTIANA TRUST, A DIVISION OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WILMINGTON SAVINGS, : PENNSYLVANIA WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND : SOCIETY FSB, AND MTGLQ : INVESTORS LP : : v. : : CALVIN FIELDING, SR. : : No. 3118 EDA 2022 Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 170402857
BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2023
Calvin Fielding, Sr., appeals pro se from the order denying his petition
to set aside the sheriff’s sale of his foreclosed-upon property. We affirm.
We glean the following case history from the trial court opinion. In
2006, Mr. Fielding took out a $96,000 loan secured by real property situated
in Philadelphia. Although Mr. Fielding promptly signed a notice of recission on
the day he received the funds, he did not follow through with the recission by
returning the money. The mortgage was assigned in 2007. Appellant stopped
making payments in 2009, notice of intent to foreclose was sent in 2013, and
the mortgage was reassigned to Christiana Trust, which initiated foreclosure
proceedings in 2017. MTGLQ Investors, LP, became the plaintiff in the action
and obtained a verdict and in rem judgment. Mr. Fielding filed no post-trial J-S36002-23
motions, which resulted in his subsequent appeal being dismissed for failure
to preserve any claims. MTGLQ initiated execution proceedings on its
judgment, which were delayed by Mr. Fielding’s opposition and the COVID-19
pandemic.
A sheriff’s sale was eventually scheduled for October 4, 2022. Mr.
Fielding filed an eleventh-hour emergency petition to stay it. The trial court
held a hearing at which Mr. Fielding sought to relitigate the foreclosure action,
reasserting the same defenses that had been rejected at trial. Finding that
Mr. Fielding had “zero credible basis for his requested relief,” the trial court
denied the petition. Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/23, at 5. The property was sold
at auction the same day.
On October 17, 2022, Mr. Fielding filed a motion to set aside the sheriff’s
sale, reiterating the same previously-rejected arguments about the validity of
the foreclosure judgment. The trial court denied the motion by order of
November 10, 2022. This timely appeal followed, and both Mr. Fielding and
the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Mr. Fielding presents the
following questions for our review, which we have re-ordered for ease of
disposition:
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set aside the sale, giving no basis for the denial and dismissal?
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to proceed because a loan modification was offered and pending?
-2- J-S36002-23
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to proceed because it was a breach of contract?
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set aside the sale, since the sale should not have been permitted to proceed because the plaintiff admitted they never sent a correct notice of intent to foreclose?
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying my motion to set aside the sale, because the plaintiff lacked standing?
6. Whether the trial court erred in failing to properly attach an opinion?
Mr. Fielding’s brief at 2-3 (cleaned up).
The following principles govern our review:
We will not reverse a trial court’s decision regarding whether to set aside a sheriff’s sale absent a clear abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the judgment is the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record, discretion is abused.
A petition to set aside a sheriff’s sale is grounded in equitable principles. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief.
LSF8 Master Participation Tr. v. Petrosky, 271 A.3d 1288, 1291
(Pa.Super. 2022).
Upon a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and
the applicable law, we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion on the
part of the trial court as to the issues raised by Mr. Fielding, and we affirm the
order on the basis of the cogent opinion that the Honorable Anne Marie B.
-3- J-S36002-23
Coyle issued on May 2, 2022.1 Specifically, Judge Coyle properly concluded
that Mr. Fielding was well-aware of the court’s basis for rejecting his
arguments based upon the prior proceedings, and that no statute or court rule
required the preparation of an opinion explaining the denial of Mr. Fielding’s
motion prior to the appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/23, at 6-7. Further,
Judge Coyle acted well within her discretion in determining that Mr. Fielding
presented no evidence to invoke the court’s equitable powers to stay the sale.
Id. at 8-9.
In short, Mr. Fielding had the opportunity to obtain appellate review of
his issues concerning the validity of the mortgage foreclosure action and
judgment in an appeal therefrom. He squandered that opportunity by failing
to preserve the issues such that his appeal was dismissed. The trial court
properly concluded that his collateral attack upon that judgment via the
petition to set aside the sale is untenable. No relief is due.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
1 MTGLQ argues that Mr. Fielding’s arguments are waived because he failed
to properly: (1) preserve them in a post-trial motion or develop them in his brief, (2) cite pertinent authorities within his brief, or (3) ensure inclusion within the certified record of that the transcript of the hearing on the motion denied in the appealed-from order. See Appellee’s brief at 12-13. Instead of finding waiver, we have considered Mr. Fielding’s arguments to the extent that his brief and the certified record before us permits and have concluded that the trial court’s opinion ably disposes of them.
-4- J-S36002-23
Date: October 11, 2023
-5- Circulated 09/28/2023 06:48 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION DIVISION — -- CIVIL
CHRISTIANA TRUST, A A DIVISION OF WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND APRIL TERM 2017 NO.- NO.20857
-- -' ,_·- SOCIETY, FSB, AND ANDMTGLQ 20857
INVESTORS INVESTORS LP, 0857 00857 N ,.a S•7
Plaintiff(s)
- ra '• • • €;C-
"TI7 1
-- ze . •-r V.
CALVIN FIELDING, FIELDING, SR., SUPERIOR COURT NO. 3118 EDA 2022 - 7
t ' +di9tL:A � r £ w7
g ·o rt. � 74 Defendant Defendant . 0 c;1 .,' _'U) � cn W 0. OPINION
Appellant, Appellant, Calvin Fielding, Fielding, Sr., the Defendant in the above-captioned mortgage foreclosure
action, seeks civil action, seeks review review of of the Order that that had been been entered entered on November November 10, 10, 2022, 2022, by the the
Honorable Honorable Anne Marie B. Coyle, Coyle, presiding presiding as Judge of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania,
Court of Court of Common Pleas, Pleas, Civil Division, hereinafter hereinafter referred to to as as ""this this Court," denying
Appellant's Petition Appellant's Petition to Set Aside the Sheriff's Sheriffs Sale' for property located at 7153 N. 19th I9th St.,
Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19126. Review of the record reveals that Calvin Fielding, Sr. failed to introduce
any evidence that had warranted this Court exercising its equitable powers any powers to set aside the subject
sale of the property property located at 7153 N. 19th St., St,, Philadelphia, PA 19126 on October 4, 2022 by the
City of City of Philadelphia Sheriff'ss Department. Philadelphia Sheriff Department.
OPFLD-Christiana Trust 0PFLD-Christiana Vs Fielding Trust Vs Fielding
1 1 1 1III III 1 1 1 1 1 1IHI 111111111 17040285700146
IAppellant in his respective 'Appellant filings has interchangeably respective filings interchangeably referenced the subject pleading as both a a Motion to Stay the Sale and a a Petition to Set Aside Sheriff Sale. Sale
1 FACTUAL FACTUAL AND AND PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY
On September On September 18, 18, 2006 2006 Appellant Calvin Fielding, Appellant Calvin Fielding, Sr. signed,and Sr. signed and executed executed a apromissory promissory
note ("Note") secured by note ("Note") by aamortgage mortgage ("Mortgage") ("Mortgage") loan in the amount of of $96,000, to refinance the
real property real property located at 7153 N. N, 19th 19h St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19126, hereinafter the the"Property," Property," with
Mortgage Mortgage Lenders Lenders Network, Network, USA. USA. See Procedural Procedural and factual factual history history recorded recorded in in MTGLQ MTGLO
Investors, Investors, LP v.». Fielding, Fielding, Sr., Sr,, 2020 WL 8024774, at at *I1 (Pa.Com.Pl.). (Pa.Com.PI). On September 18, 2006,
after receiving receiving the funds, Mr. Mr. Fielding signed a Fielding signed aNotice Notice of Rescission to attempt to rescind the loan
pursuant pursuant to to 15 15 USC USC §$1635 1635 of the the Federal Federal Truth in Lending Aet. in Lending Act. However, Mr. Mt. Fielding Fielding failed failed to
tender tender the the received funds to received funds to Mortgage Mortgage Lenders Lenders Network, Network, USA, USA, and and to to take take required required termination termination
steps to steps terminate the Note and Mortgage. to terminate Mortgage. Id. Instead, he misappropriated the received funds to
pay off several pay off several other other outstanding outstanding debts debts and kept the and kept the excess excess cash. cash. Id. As As a a result, result, Mortgage Lenders Mortgage Lenders
Network, Network, USA, USA, duly duly recorded the Mortgage with the Philadelphia County Recorder of Deeds
began servicing Office and began servicing the the Note Note and and the Mortgage. Mortgage. Id. Id
On or before February February 2, 2, 2007, Bank of America N.A., was assigned possession and
servicer of servicer of the the original original loan. loan. Id. On or Id On or about about September September 28, 2012, Bank 28, 2012, of America, Bank of America, determined determined
that that they they had had lost the original original Note Note and executed an Affidavit of an Affidavit of Lost Note to to affirm affirm that that they they had had
not transferred the Note and had remained its rightful possessor. Id. at at 3.
Appellant Appellant stopped stopped making making payments on the payments on Mortgage Loan the Mortgage and Note Loan and on May Note on 1, 2009. May 1, 2009.
Bank Bank of America America informed Appellant of the default due to his informed Appellant his non-payment non-payment on August August 12, 2009. 2009.
Id. On April Id On April 12, 2013, Bank of America, 12,2013, America, also informed Mr. Fielding of their intent to foreclose via
certified mail that had been sent to the Property. Property. Pending the commencement of foreclosure
litigation, the Note litigation, Note and the the Mortgage Mortgage Loan Loan were were transferred transferred between between several lenders lenders and servicers
before before Christiana Trust became became the the holder holder of the the Mortgage. Mortgage. Id. Id
2 2 April 20, On April 20, 2017, 2017, Christiana Trust filed Christiana Trust filed a Complaint in a Complaint in Mortgage Mortgage Foreclosure against the Foreclosure against the
Property, Property, requesting an in-rem requesting an judgment for in-rem judgment $ 169,306.07. Over for $169,306.07. Over the course of the course of lengthy lengthy litigation, litigation,
the the Mortgage Mortgage and Note underwent several more transfers until the current Plaintiff and Appellee,
MTGLQ MTGLQ Investors, Investors, LP., LP., became holders and servicers of the Mortgage Loan and Note on June 21,
2019. Id. 2019.
On January 8, 2020 January 8, 2020 and and January January 9, 9, 2020, the Honorable 2020, the Honorable Stella Stella Tsai, Tsai, Judge Judge of the Court of the Court of of
Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania Civil Division conducted a Common abench
trial. trial. Plaintiff Plaintiff MTGLQ MTGLQ Investors, LP LP was represented represented by Bradley J, J. Osborne, Esquire, Esquire, and
Appellant Fielding was represented Appellant Calvin Fielding represented by by Joshua Joshua L. Thomas, Esquire. Esquire.'2 Judge Tsai entered entered aa
verdict and judgment judgment in rem in favor of Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, LP, on November 10, 2020.
In a a Memorandum Opinion Opinion supporting supporting the Order of Judgement, Judge Tsai determined that
Defendant Calvin Fielding, Defendant Calvin Fielding, Sr. Sr. had had been in default been in of the default of the Note and Mortgage Note and Mortgage Loan due to Loan due to his his
chronic non-payment chronic non-payment toward toward his obligations, and his obligations, and recited recited the the following following three three relevant relevant findings of findings of
fact, fact, inter alia:
1. "Plaintiff Plaintiff MTGLQ MTGLQ Investors, LP. had standing to enforce the Mortgage and Note. Note 2. Plaintiff MTGLQ MTGLQ Investors, Investors, LP was in possession possession of a of avalid Affidavit of Lost Note, Note, properly properly effectuated by by prior prior Note servicer Bank of America, NA. 33. Defendant failed to properly properly execute recission of the loan."
Id. 4-8. Id at 4.8
On December 7, 2020, Mr. Fielding, through former counsel, filed aatimely appeal of the
Order and Judgment Order Judgment to the Superior Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. The appellate court quashed the appeal
February 16, on February 2, 2021, Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, LP filed aaPraecipe for February 2, 16, 2021. On February
zWhile the docketed record reflects that While that Mr. Mr. Thomas still represents represents Mr. Mr. Fielding, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a two-year suspension of Mr. a two-year Mr Thomas' license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on October 1, October 2021. Appellant I,2021. Appellant has proceeded pro has proceeded pro se in in the current current litigation litigation before before this this Court.
33 of Execution, Writ of Execution, and and the the Philadelphia Philadelphia Sheriff's Sheriffs Department initially scheduled Department initially scheduled a aSheriff's Sale Sheriffs Sale
of the of the Property Property for for May 4, 2021. May 4, 2021. In In response, response, Defendant Defendant Fielding Fielding filed filed a a Motion to Strike the Writ
on April April 8, 8, 2021 and the sale sale was continued until until July July 13, 13, 2021. 2021.
On June On June 15, 2021, Judge 15, 2021, Tsai granted Judge Tsai granted Defendant's Defendant'sMotion Motion to Strike the Writ, after after finding finding
that the that the Prothonotary Prothonotary had lacked lacked jurisdiction jurisdiction to to enter the the writ, writ, due to to then then pending pending appeal. As As a.a
result, the result, the City City of of Philadelphia Philadelphia Sheriff's Department Department cancelled the July 13, 2021 sale of the subject 13,2021
Property. Thereafter, the matter was stayed Property. Thereafter, stayed for over aayear year due to the entry of Administrative Order
No. No. 18, by the 18, by the Count Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, which had
directed a a moratorium moratorium of all sheriff's sales due all sheriffs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. the COVID-I9
Administrative Administrative Order No. 18, expired on December 31, 18, expired 2021, and on June 29, 2022, current 31,2021,
servicer, and Plaintiff, servicer, Plaintiff, MTGLQ of Execution. Thd MTGLQ Investors, LP, filed aasecond Praecipe for Writ of The
City of Philadelphia City of Philadelphia Sheriff's Department subsequently scheduled a Department subsequently a sale of the the Property f6i Property fot
October 4, 2022. October 4, 2022. On On October October 3, 2022, at 3, 2022, at or or around around 6.24 6:24 P.M., P.M., Defendant Calvin Fielding Defendant Calvin Sr. filed Fielding Sr. filed
an an Emergency Emergency Petition to Stay Petition to Sale,' which Stay Sale, which was assigned to was assigned to this Court as this Court as the the presiding Judge of presiding Judge of
the Philadelphia Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Civil Motions program. In his Petition, Mr. Fielding
repeated repeated his his previously disproven and completely previously disproven completely resolved resolved claims, that he he had had rescinded rescinded the loan, loan,
that the lost Note had been fraudulently obtained, and that Plaintiff MTGLQ MTGLO Investors, LP had
lacked standing standing to foreclose on the Mortgage Mortgage and Note. This Court scheduled an emergency
hearing hearing to address Appellant's Appellant's Emergency Emergency Petition to Stay Sale for 10:00 A.M. on October 4, 4,202i 2022
in Courtroom 446 City Hall 446 City Hall Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. PA
hearing, Mr. Fielding At the hearing, Fielding appeared appeared in person person pro se, and Sara McCaffrey Esquire,
appeared as appeared counsel for as counsel for Plaintiff Plaintiff by by phone, phone, because because Appellant Appellant had had filed filed to to abide by this abide by this Court's Court's
Appellant interchangeably references this filing as both an Emergency Motion to Stay a Appellant 3 aSale and a aPetition to Stay Sale. Sale 4 4 previously issued Ex previously issued Er Parte Order directing him Order directing him to serve Plaintiff to serve Plaintiff with with aacopy copy of of his his Emergency
Petition Petition to to Stay and Rule Stay and and Notice Rule and Notice of hearing date, of hearing date, time, time, and and location. location. See Notes of Testimony
from hearing from hearing on October 4, 4, 2022 p. p. 13. 13
Counsel Counsel for for Plaintiff, McCaffrey, Esquire, Plaintiff, Sara Mccaffrey, Esquire, duly informed informed this Court that that MTGLQ
Investors, Investors, LP had previously LP had and properly previously and served Appellant properly served Appellant with with aacopy copy of of the the Writ Writ and and Notice of Notice of
the Sheriff Sale by by certified mail and by by posting posting to the Property. Id. Id at 16. 16. Plaintiffs Plaintiff's attorney
further further related related that Mr. Mr. Fielding Fielding had rejected all offers had rejected offers of loan mitigation, contrary to his false false
representations representations to this Court. Court. Id. at 17. 17. In In response, Appellant repeated response, Appellant repeated his claims that that he he had
loan, and that the Affidavit of rescinded the loan, of Lost Note had been fraudulently issued. issued. He demanded
that that the the matter matter be be listed listed for for another another trial. trial. Id. at 20. 20. Having Having determined that that Appellant Appellant had had presented presented
zero credible basis for his requested requested relief, this Court denied the Emergency Petition to Stay Sale Sale:
Id. at. 22. The ld at. The Property Property was was sold at sheriff sale and and auction auction that that same day. No No appeal was was filed. filed.
Instead of filing any timely filing any timely appeal appeal of this Court's Order of October 4, 2022, Appellant filed
aaMotion to Set Aside the Sale on October October 17, 2022, which which regurgitated the the same same arguments that that
had been raised within his Emergency Emergency Petition to Stay the Sale and during prior oral argument and
offered testimony. testimony. This Court formally formally denied the Motion to Set Aside the Sale on November 10,
2022. Mr. 2022. Mr. Calvin Fielding Fielding filed an appeal appeal of this Court's Order of November 10, 2022 denying the
Motion to Set Aside the Sale on December 6, 2022.
On January January 4, 2023, this Court directed Appellant 4, 2023, Appellant to file a aConcise Statement of Errors
Complained of on Complained of on Appeal, pursuant to Appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rule Rule of Appellate Procedure of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). 1925(b). In In
response, response, Appellant Appellant filed aa1925(b) 1925(b) Statement raising the following verbatim twelve twelve ((12) 12) claims:
1. "Whether Whether thethe trial trial court court erred erred in in denying denying my my motion to Set motion to Set Aside The Sale, Aside The Sale, giving giving no no basis basis for the denial for the denial and and dismissal.. dismissal...
5 2.2. Whether Whether the the trial denying my trial court erred in denying my motion motion to to Set Set Aside The Sale, Sale, since The sale should not have been permitted permitted to proceed because aa loan modification was offered and pending.... pending. 3. 3. Whether Whether the the trial court erred trial court erred in denying my in denying my motion motion to Set Aside to Set The Sale, Aside The Sale, since The sale since The sale should should not not have been permitted have been permitted to to proceed because it proceed because it was aabreach breach contract... of contract. 4. 4 Whether the trial court erred in denying denying my motion to Set Aside The Sale, since the sale should not have been permitted permitted to proceed because the Plaintiff admitted admitted theythey never sent a never sent correct Notice a correct Notice of of Intent Intent to to Foreclose... Foreclose... 5. Whether the trial court erred in in denying denying my motion to Set Aside The Sale, because the Plaintiff lacked standing. standing... 6. Whether the trial court erred in failing failing to properly properly attach an opinion.. opinion... 7. Whether the trial court erred fails to recognize recognize the new evidence of the lost note robo signed signed documents and forge forge file by by the plaintiff's complaint... plaintiffs complaint.. 8. Whether the trial court erred of the plaintiff complaint of having a a clear chain chain of of Title Title without without proof proof of of assignment... assignment... 9. 9, Whether the trial court erred in in ignoring ignoring the Violation Cease & & Desist order of evidence from the SEC filings filings that the t h at t he companies have a a long history of non- existing existing and abuse and has been penalized penalized an agreement agreement with the SEC... 10. 10, Whether Whether the trial court the trial court erred erred in in failing failing to allow for to allow for the defense Declaration the defense Declaration of Private of Private Investigator, Investigator, Mortgage Mortgage auditor auditor William William J,J. Paatalo Paatalo (sp) (sp) findings of findings of Facts... 11.1 Whether The trial courts allow aaVolition of aafalse substitution after the default waswas entered entered in in trial trial court court proceeding proceeding was was ongoing... 12. 2. Whether Whether the trial trial courts courts erred erred to ignoring ignoring Violation Violation Cease Cease & & Desist Desist order of Judgements from the Office of the Comptroller of Currency by Continuing consent Judgements to to use use Deceptive Deceptive Practices. Practices. Voide Voide (sp) (sp) Notices Notices of Default. Default. Notices Notices of of sale."
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
Despite Appellant's listing Despite Appellant's listing of a amyriad myriad of perceived errors, no claim has been presented
that deserving of appellate that is deserving appellate relief. Appellant complained relief. Appellant complained in in claims numbered one one ((1) 1) and six six (6),
that this Court had erred by attaching to its November 10, 2022 Order, aamemorandum opinion by not attaching
stating the stating the rationale rationale for the the dismissal dismissal of his his Motion to Set Aside the the Sale. Since neither neither the the
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania nor the Philadelphia Philadelphia Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that a a trial court include an
Opinion or Memorandum with their Orders, these claims should be summarily dismissed Opinion dismissed.
66 Moreover, already responded Moreover, since this Court had already responded to Appellant's previously filed and
litigated litigated Emergency EmergencyMotion Motion to to Set Aside the Set Aside the Sale, Sale, which which had had included included mirror mirror imaged claims to to the the
subject Motion subject Motion to Set Aside the Sale, Appellant Appellant had demonstrated no prejudice for this Court's lack
of additional comments within the subject subject Order. Appellant did not appeal this Court's ruling and
had been well-advised of this Court's rationale and of Judge Tsai's previous relevant findings. had
Within appellate appellate claim number two two (2), (2), Appellant asserted "that the sale should not have
been been permitted proceed because a permitted to proceed a loan modification was offered and pending." This complaint
directly contradicts eredible directly credible evidence that had been introduced during the hearing held before this
Court on October 4, Court 4, 2022 2022 in response response to to Mr. Mr. Fielding's Fielding's last minute minute Emergency Emergency Petition Petition to to Stay the the
Sale. Indeed, Indeed, the relevant evidence that had been introduced demonstrated quite convincingly that
Appellant's claim of a Appellant's apending pending loan modification had been patently false because Appellant had
repeatedly the loan obligations repeatedly refused Plaintiff's offers to him to modify the obligations.
Additionally, Additionally, Appellant's Appellant's claim number three (3), recites that the sheriff sale should not
have have gone gone forward forward because because it it"was was aabreach contract.," This complaint should be breach of contract_" be dismissed as
vague and overly it is too vague broad. Pa. R.A.P. 1925()(4(ii) overly broad. 1925(b)(4)(ii) requires an appellant to "concisely
identify identify each error that the appellant appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to
the judge." be raised for the judge." A A vague vague and overly broad issue is deemed waived as it is equivocal to not
raising raising the claim at all. See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148 • Wyeth, 148 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013); Hess v v.
Fox Rothschild, Rothschild, LLP, LLP, 925 A.2d 798, 803-04 803-04 (Pa. Ct. 2007). Mr. Fielding's third claim is so (Pa. Super. Ct.
ambiguous that this Court must ambiguous guess as to the source of his must guess his grievance. Thus, this patently patently meritless
protest protest had been waived. Similarly, Appellant does not narrate a Similarly, Appellant acoherent sentence within claim
eleven ((H). numbered eleven 11). Since this Court again again cannot reasonably determine what what claim Appellant Appellant
is asserting, it has been waived as undecipherable.
7 7 Appellant's remaining Appellant's complaints lack any legitimate factual or legal basis that could remaining complaints
warrant any warrant any relief. relief. Mr. Mr, Fielding Fielding submitted zero evidence to justify setting aside the sheriff sale of
the subject the subject property. property, Instead, Instead, his Motion to Set Aside the Sale simply reiterated his claims from
previously previously litigated litigated foreclosure action that had long since been entered as a a Judgment and Order
following trial. following trial
Specifically, Pa.R.C.P. No. 3132 sets forth direction for when petitions to set aside sheriff Specifically, s sheriffs
sales may may be be allowed:
"Upon Upon petition petition of any party of any party in in interest before delivery interest before delivery of of the the personal personal property or property or of of the sheriff's deed to the sheriffs to real property, property, the court court may, may, upon upon proper proper cause shown, set aside the sale and order a a resale or enter any any other order which may be just and proper proper under under the the circumstances."
Pa.R.C.P. Pa.RC.P. No. 3132. No. 3132. In determining In determining whether whether to set aside to set aside a sheriff's sale, a sheriff's sale, "[e]quitable "[equitable
considerations govern considerations govern the the trial trial court's decision." Bank of Am., Bank of Am., N.A. N.A. v. of Hood, • Estate of Hood, 47 A.3d A.3d
1208, 1211 1208, 1211 (Pa. Super. Ct. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) 2012) (internal citation omitted). (internal citation omitted). It is well It is settled that well settled that the the burden of burden of
proof proof is is on the the petitioner: petitioner
"As aageneral As general rule, rule, the burden of proving proving circumstances warranting the exercise of tthe he court's equitable equitable powers powers is on the applicant, applicant, and the application to set aside aa sheriffs sale sheriff's sale may may be refused because because of the the insufficiency insufficiency of proof proof to to support support the the material material allegations allegations of of the the application, application, which which are are generally generally required required to to be be established established byby clear evidence." clear evidence."
Id. (internal Id (internal citation omitted). omitted). A A trial court's decision on aapetition to set aside will "not
[be] reverse[d] [be] reverse[d] ... .. absent an abuse of discretion." Id. Id
Appellant Appellant had had requested requested this Court exercise this Court exercise its its equitable equitable powers powers based on a based on a vague vague
proclamation of fraud, proclamation of fraud, and of aafalse and of false statement statement that that there had been there had been aapending pending loan loan modification modification
agreement. Mr. Fielding agreement. Fielding provided provided no evidence to support either assertion. To the contrary,
Plaintiff, Plaintiff, by by and through through its counsel, had previously previously and repeatedly debunked these bold claims
both during both during the the trial and later trial and during subsequent later during subsequent hearing hearing that that this Court had this Court conducted on had conducted on October October
8 8 4, 2022 4, 2022 to to address address the the earlier Emergency Emergeney Petition to Stay the Sheriff Sale. No No appeal appeal was was filed filed
following following this Court Order that had been entered denying this Court denying the Emergency Petition to Stay the
Sheriff Sheriff Sale Sale on October 4, on October 4, 2022. 2022. Instead, Appellant subsequently Instead, Appellant subsequently filed filed the the meritless meritless Motion Motion to to Set Set
Aside the the Sale which had had constituted aabelated and repeated repeated attempt attempt to revive revive previously previously disposed
claims.
Appellant's Motion Appellant's Motion to to Set Aside the Sale, on its Sale, on its face, contained vague, face, contained vague, repetitive, repetitive, and and
conclusory written conclusory written statements that had been devoid of any factual or legal support. For instance,
Mr. Fielding referred Mr. Fielding referred to a pending "pending loan modification agreement" agreement" between himself and MTGLQ
as justification as justification to set aside to set aside the the sale. sale. However, However, the the record soundly reflects record soundly reflects that that Mr. Mr. Fielding Fielding
repeatedly repeatedly rejected rejected Plaintiff's offers to Plaintiffs offers to enter into aaloan enter into loan modification agreement leading modification agreement leading up up to to the the
Sheriff's Sheriffs Sale. Nor Appellant provide Nor did Appellant provide any any documentation or or evidence which which had had demonstrated
that that there had had been any subsequent discussions about aaloan modification. Given Mr. any subsequent Mr. Fielding's
characterization of Plaintiffs Plaintiffs as "bottom-feeder debt debt collectors," there is is no no reason to believe that that
he he had approached any loan modification effort with good approached any good faith intentions. intentions
Appellate nine (9) Appellate claims numbered nine (9) and twelve twelve ((2), 12), referenced unrelated findings against
prior prior Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, hereinafter "WSFS", Wilmington Savings WSFS", made by the United
States Securities and Exchange Exchange Commission, hereafter ""SEC," SEC," and Office of the Comptroller of
Currency. These criticisms lacked any Currency. any nexus to Appellant's circumstances.' Notably, Mr. Appellant's current circumstances. Mr,
Fielding's Fielding's "Exhibit I" which documented an SEC decision to institute cease-and-desist
proceedings against proceedings against WSFS, WSFS, pertained pertained to to their their dealings with aaMr. dealings with Andrew Proctor. Mr. Andrew Proctor. As As such, this such, this
document was completely irrelevant and not permissibly was completely permissibly entered evidence. Moreover, Appellant's
references to these references findings offered no these extraneous findings justification to no justification to set aside the the sale.
While Mr. While 4 Fielding referred to an Mr. Fielding an Office of the the Comptroller of Currency decision as an attached Exhibit "J" in Exhibit l in his petition, petition, he he failed failed to attach exhibit. attach the exhibit
99 The remainder of Mr. Fielding's Fielding's claims, lack of evidence notwithstanding, constituted
nothing nothing more than baseless attacks upon upon the validity of the underlying final judgement that had
been entered in 2020. been 2020. Notably, Notably, aatrial court may not modify an Order after thirty (30) days of its
entry. P.A.R.C.P entry. P.A.R.C.P §$ 5505. See also Simpson Simpson v. • Allstate Ins. Co., 504 A.24 A.2d 335, 337 337 (Pa. Ct. (Pa. Super. Ct
1986) 1986) ("A (A entered in adverse proceedings proceedings becomes final if no appeal therefrom is filed within
thirty days.") thirty days.") Once this window passes, passes, aatrial court may not rescind an order or relitigate the
underlying Simpson at underlying issues. Simpson at 337. Similarly, aacourt may not 337, Similarly, not relitigate relitigate issues determined by aa
court of higher higher or concurrent jurisdiction. Com. v. jurisdiction. Com ». Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa. (Pa. 1995)
(discussing the "law of the case" doctrine). (discussing
Appellant's Appellant's claims, that as the previous previous Defendant, he had rescinded the Note and
Mortgage, Mortgage, and that the Plaintiff MTGLQ had lacked standing to pursue the foreclosure, and that
the Affidavit ofLost Affidavit of Lost Note had been fraudulent. Each assertion had been previously presented during
trial before Judge Judge Tsai, Tsai, who found them without merit, and entered aajudgement in favor of the
Plaintiff Plaintiff in 2020. Mr. in 2020. Mr. Fielding Fielding appealed appealed the verdict, verdict, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
appeal. Thus, the Order and Judgment had become final well before Appellant dismissed his appeal.
appeared the eve of the Sheriff Sale and again after the property had been appeared before this Court on the
sold. Since the underlying underlying facts of this case had been long since settled, Appellant is not entitled
to relitigate them. them
Summarily, Appellant has failed to present any clear evidence or reason to warrant this Summarily,
Court to exercise its equitable equitable power power to set aside the Sheriff's Sheriffs Sale. Sale. Instead, he presented this
Court with wild, wild, baseless claims to illegally illegally relitigate relitigate aalong-settled matter. Since there had been
no proper proper cause demonstrated to set set aside the Sheriffs Sheriff's Sale, this Court had committed no error or 1 abuse in discretion by by denying Mr. Calvin Fielding's Fielding'sMotion Motion to Set Aside the Sale Sale.
10 IO CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully requests that its its Order of November
10, 2022 denying Appellant's 10, Appellant's Motion to Set Motion to Set Aside the Sale Aside the Sale be affirmed.
BY RY THE COURT:
-;? - ✓- Hon. 1•_ H:n. Anne ;�rlc -/ �oyle, arie B. Coyle, J.