On September 2, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a published opinion, affirmed summary judgment in favor of a mortgage holder in a foreclosure action, holding that RESPA notice-of-error violations cannot serve as a defense to a state foreclosure proceeding. The borrower argued that the mortgage holder’s failure to respond to multiple notices of error under RESPA resulted in a waiver of mortgage enforcement rights. The court disagreed, citing its recent decision holding that while RESPA provides a private right of action for actual damages resulting from servicing violations, “nothing in RESPA provides a borrower with a defense in a state mortgage foreclosure action.” The court also rejected the borrower’s challenge to the mortgage assignment chain, finding that the borrower lacked standing to contest the assignments absent any allegation of actual or potential injury from enforcement of the mortgage and note.

The borrower further contended that accounting irregularities — including more than $200,000 in allegedly unapplied payments — and erroneous interest and escrow calculations created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. The court found these claims were conclusory, unsupported by specific evidence, and effectively constituted an admission of default, as the borrower conceded she ceased making payments after 2017. The court noted the borrower had admitted in her pleadings that the mortgage holder was the holder of the note and entitled to enforce it. The court additionally found waived or undeveloped the borrower’s claims under TILA, the FDCPA, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, as well as the borrower’s due process argument regarding an allegedly incomplete court record.