Bank of America, N.A. v. Scott

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment entered in favor of the Estate of Bessie Emory (“the Estate”), following a non-jury trial in this mortgage foreclosure action. First, Bank of America (“BofA”) argued that the trial court erred in denying BofA’s motion in limine to preclude the Estate from introducing evidence regarding loss mitigation and payoff. The Superior Court ruled that BofA waived the issue because it did not raise the denial of its motion in limine in its post-trial motion. Next, BofA claimed that 1) it proved all the elements necessary to establish that it was entitled to a judgment in foreclosure, and 2) the trial court erred by concluding that BofA failed to meet a condition precedent in a reverse mortgage. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Estate as the verdict winner, the Superior Court concluded that the Estate established its affirmative defense that BofA failed to comply with 24 C.F.R. § 206.125(a)(2) and HUD Handbook 4330.1.

Search entire site by keyword...

Search for Summaries by Hashtag...

Past Opinion Summaries