U.S. Bank Trust v. Torok, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

U.S. Bank Trust v. Torok, F.

DecidedJuly 15, 2025

Docket158 EDA 2024

StatusUnpublished

This text of U.S. Bank Trust v. Torok, F. (U.S. Bank Trust v. Torok, F.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

U.S. Bank Trust v. Torok, F., (Pa. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A21026-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ASSOCIATION : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : FRANK E. TOROK, JR. AND JOANN M. : TOROK : No. 158 EDA 2024 : : APPEAL OF: FRANK E. TOROK, JR. :

Appeal from the Order Entered December 14, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division at No(s): 2020-C-0729

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED JULY 15, 2025

Appellant Frank E. Torok, Jr., appeals pro se from the order granting

summary judgment in favor of Appellee U.S. Bank Trust National Association

in the underlying residential mortgage foreclosure action. 1 Appellant argues

that Appellee lacked standing to foreclose and also asserts that the trial court

erred when it denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration. After review, we

affirm based on the trial court’s opinion, which incorporated by reference the

December 14, 2023 order.

____________________________________________

1 In October of 2024, Appellant filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and this appeal

was stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362. See Order, 11/27/24. On June 2, 2025, the bankruptcy stay was lifted allowing this appeal to proceed. See Order, 6/2/25. J-A21026-24

The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of

this matter as follows:

On August 4, 2005, [Appellant] obtained a loan in the principal amount of $311,950.00 as evidenced by a note he signed (“Note”) payable to lender, Quicken Loans, Inc. (“Quicken”), secured by a Mortgage signed by [Appellant] and Joann M. Torok (individually and collectively “Toroks”) recorded in the Lehigh County Recorder of Deeds Office on August 15, 2005 (Doc ID 7283981)(“Mortgage”) on real property located at 5201 Stansfield Drive, Zionsville, Lehigh County, PA 18092 (“Premises”). The Note and Mortgage were modified by a Home Affordable Modification Agreement effective January 1, 2016, which included changes to the principal balance owed, the interest rate, and maturity date, among others. The Mortgage, as modified, was ultimately assigned to [Appellee] by assignment recorded in the Lehigh County Recorder of Deeds Office on February 3, 2022[,] identified as Doc ID 2022004591. [Appellee’s] predecessor in interest, Nationstar Mortgage, initiated this action due to [Appellant’s] defaults under the Note and Mortgage. By Praecipe to Substitute Party Plaintiff as evidenced by the Assignment of Mortgage recorded February 3, 2022, [Appellee] was substituted as the named plaintiff in this case. On May 16, 2023, [Appellee] filed for summary judgment which the court originally granted by Order dated June 21, 2023. Following [Appellant’s] Petition to Open or Strike the default judgment, the court subsequently vacated that Order. See Order dated October 16, 2023. Thereafter, [Appellant] filed a response to [Appellee’s] summary judgment motion contending that [Appellee] lacks standing to initiate this mortgage foreclosure action (i.e. [Appellee] was not the real party in interest).

Order, 12/14/23, at 1, n.1 (formatting altered). On December 14, 2023, the

trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and both the trial court and

Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:

-2- J-A21026-24

1. Whether the trial court erred in improperly granting motion for summary judgment for [Appellee]?

2. Whether the trial court should have granted [Appellant’s] motion to reconsider?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.2

Our standard of review of an order granting or denying summary

judgment is as follows:

We review an order granting summary judgment for an abuse of discretion. Our scope of review is plenary, and we view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. A party bearing the burden of proof at trial is entitled to summary judgment “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 discovery or expert report[.]” Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1). In response to a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party cannot rest upon the pleadings[] but rather must set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035.3.

The holder of a mortgage has the right, upon default, to bring a foreclosure action. The holder of a mortgage is entitled to summary judgment if the mortgagor admits that the mortgage is in default, the mortgagor has failed to pay on the obligation, and the recorded mortgage is in the specified amount.

2 In the statement of questions presented, Appellant also contends that the

trial court erred when it did not grant summary judgment in favor of Appellant. See Appellant’s Brief at 3. However, the record does not reflect that Appellant filed a motion for summary judgment or that the trial court denied it. Indeed, Appellee points out this deficiency in its brief. See Appellee’s Brief at 13. Moreover, Appellant fails to develop any argument on this issue, which Appellee also notes. See id. We conclude this issue is waived due to Appellant’s failure to develop an argument. See Wirth v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 822, 837 (Pa. 2014) (stating that “[w]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived. It is not the obligation of [an appellate court] to formulate [a]ppellant’s arguments for him.”).

-3- J-A21026-24

Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462, 464 (Pa. Super. 2014)

(some citations omitted and formatting altered).

“In mortgage foreclosure actions, general denials by mortgagors that

they are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

averments as to the principal and interest owing on the mortgage must be

considered an admission of those facts.” Id. at 467 (some formatting

altered). “Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an

issue essential to his case and on which it bears the burden of proof

establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of

law.” JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258, 1261 (Pa.

Super. 2013). “The foreclosing party can prove standing either by showing

that it (1) originated or was assigned the mortgage,[3] or (2) is the holder of

the note specially indorsed to it or indorsed in blank.” Gerber v. Piergrossi,

142 A.3d 854, 859-60 (Pa. Super. 2016).

Appellant first argues that Appellee lacked standing in this matter. See

Appellant’s Brief at 12-20. The trial court addressed Appellant’s first issue

and concluded that Appellant is not entitled to relief. See Trial Ct. Op. at 1-2

(incorporating the Order filed 12/14/23). Following our review of the record,

the parties’ arguments, and the trial court’s conclusions, we discern no abuse

of discretion or error of law, and we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI