Wells Fargo v. Monroe - Superior Court - January 26, 2009
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s71014_08.pdf
An allegedly defective* Act 91 notice was held not to be a defense to a foreclosure action when the mortgagors were given and availed themselves of the opportunity to pursue mortgage assistance through the HEMAP program.
They met with a credit counseling agency within the 30, as provided by the Act 91 Notice, and applied for mortgage assistance, which was ultimately denied. Under these circumstances, no prejudice could be presumed because of lack of compliance with the Act 91 requirements, and no prejudice was shown.
The " trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Act 91 Notice sufficiently apprised the Monroes of their options with regard to the aid to which they were entitled. Therefore, the trial court’s grant of the motion for summary judgment filed by Wells Fargo was proper."
*The Act 91 notice was alleged to be defective for lack of notation of a place to cure and the inclusion of improper fees.
