This past summer, the Pennsylvania Superior Court filed a noteworthy opinion highlighting just how strictly statutory timing requirements can be construed. The facts in the Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Lark decision, (2013 PA Super 233, No. 802 EDA 2012, 8/13/13), are straightforward enough. Back in February 2007, a borrower executed and delivered a mortgage on the Philadelphia County property to AAKO Inc.; that mortgage was recorded the same month. The mortgage was eventually assigned to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and then again to GMAC Mortgage Inc. about a year later.
The borrower defaulted on the subject loan, prompting GMAC to commence a foreclosure action December 4, 2007. An answer was never filed and accordingly default judgment was entered in favor of the lender. Subsequent to the entry of the judgment, the mortgage was assigned yet again to Nationstar Mortgage LLC, the appellee in the present matter. As the property was a primary residence, the matter made its way into Philadelphia County’s Foreclosure Diversion Program. At some point, a conciliation conference was held and the parties achieved an agreement to postpone the sheriff’s sale, affording them some additional time to strike a deal. Ultimately though, a settlement could not be reached, resulting in the property being relisted for a sheriff’s sale, compelling the borrower to file a petition to postpone the sale.
