DSNews delivers stories, ideas, links, companies, people, events, and videos impacting the mortgage default servicing industry.
Issue link: http://digital.dsnews.com/i/1530282
45 December 2024 » C O N T R I B U T E D S P O T L I G H T : L E G A L L E A G U E In the court's opinion, these notes demonstrated an intent of the legisla- ture at the time to create a right to a jury trial in foreclosure actions. Thus, despite the later adopted Rules being silent on jury trials while including language of trials without juries, the court reasoned that the 1705 Act a right to jury trials in foreclosure actions has always existed in Pennsylvania, meeting the previously mentioned three-part test. Key Questions Regarding the Wright Opinion T he Wright opinion opens the door to jury trials in an area of law which is very nuanced and law specific. However, questions still remain in the reasoning of the opinion, and whether such a right does exist. The Wright opinion relies upon notes in the 1705 Act which pertain to collection of personal debts, not mort- gage foreclosure. This is an important distinction as the opinion states the following in support of a right for jury trials "A process of inquisition and con- demnation in connection with the writ of fieri facias (see § 1:3, infra) also gave debtors a means of avoiding 'foreclo- sure' when the suit was on the note. This procedure, provided for in 1705 (see 1 Sm. L. §§ 1 and 2), allowed debtors to avoid the sheriff 's sale where the income from the property would pay off the debt within seven years. Unfortunately, this protection could also be waived by the debtor in the 'note' or bond and warrant and usually was." With this language used by the Wright court, the provision deals with actions in personal liability under a note and not in rem actions to enforce a mortgage lien in a modern foreclosure action. Such a distinction calls into question whether the notes cit- ed by the Wright opinion in fact indicate the existence of a right to jury trial in in rem foreclosure actions. As one can imagine when relying on a piece of law from 1705, the purpose of the 1705 Act and what it exactly sought to provide in terms of a jury trial lacks clarity and is open to multiple interpre- tations on both sides. Which presents a potential issue for appellate review to determine this longstanding issue. Ramifications Going Forward I t is important to note that the Wright opinion is a trial court opinion which is not binding upon other courts in the Commonwealth. Which begs the questions, what does the future hold for foreclosure jury trials in Pennsylvania? First, should courts permit jury trials in foreclosure actions, this would undoubtedly bog down the judicial econ- omy of courts throughout the Common- wealth. With the volume of foreclosure actions filed across such a large state, the conducting of potentially large num- bers of jury trials would strain the court system and affect all matters on a court's docket, creating extensive delays. This is seemingly an untenable route to move forward with and would likely require the legislature to provide clarity on the matter to prevent such a back log. Second, jury trials would have a sub- stantial impact on witnesses testifying in foreclosure cases. Foreclosure matters are littered with statutory prerequisites and requirements to prove a lender's entitlement to in rem judgment. In short, foreclosure cases are driven by statutory interpretation and application, which could present challenges for a jury at tri- al. This creates an interesting challenge for the attorneys and witnesses involved as they would now need to present a coherent case to a group of citizens with no prior knowledge in this unique area of law. Finally, such a result could lead to vastly different results depending on which area of the Commonwealth you are in. It is easy to imagine a jury in Phil- adelphia reaching a different conclusion on a matter than that of a jury in one of the more rural counties in Pennsylvania. With venue being restricted to the coun- ty in which the mortgaged property is located, it is foreseeable the imposition of jury trials would create different risks for lenders depending on which county a property is located in. Conclusion I n short, the potential right to jury trials in Pennsylvania foreclosure actions is certainly something to mon- itor. It is clear, however, that any uptick in jury trial demands in foreclosures would have a significant impact on both lenders as well as the court system. Ultimately, it seems in everyone's best interest for the legislature to take notice of this lack of clarity in the law and issue some guidance for the industry moving forward.