The plaintiff bank is the holder of a mortgage granted by Walter A. Fagnilli and Mary J. Fagnilli in March 2017. Plaintiff filed this mortgage foreclosure action against Walter and Mary in July 2016. In response, Walter filed an answer, new matter and counterclaim. He asserted that the mortgage was obtained by fraud and that plaintiff's predecessor in interest was an active participant in a fraudulent transaction by allowing Mary to commit forgery. Plaintiff then filed preliminary objections, challenging the specificity of the responsive pleading. In order to prove fraud, a plaintiff must demonstrate a representation, which is material, made falsely with knowledge of its falsity or reckless indifference to its truth, with the intent to mislead another, justifiable reliance and resulting injury. Walter failed to plead with sufficient particularity each of the elements of fraud and civil conspiracy under his illegality defense, the court determined. As such, the court sustained the bank's first preliminary objection to Walter's answer and new matter for insufficient specificity. Plaintiff's second preliminary objection challenged Walter's counterclaim, which alleged the bank was liable for the unlawful encumbrance on his property and sought damages of $116,411 The bank correctly noted that under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1141(a), an action at law to foreclose a mortgage upon any estate, leasehold or interest in land shall not include an action to enforce a personal liability. An action in mortgage foreclosure is strictly in rem and thus may not include an in personam action to enforce personal liability, the court explained. However, Pa.R.Civ.P. 1148 allows a defendant to assert a contractual counterclaim arising out of a mortgage transaction against a mortgagee, and is the only exception to the in rem rule. Walter's counterclaim for money damages was permissible under the Rule 1148 exception to the in rem rule as long as it was otherwise a permissible counterclaim. Fraud in the inducement of a mortgage is clearly a permissible counterclaim under Rule 1148, the court reasoned, citing Green Tree Consumer Disc. Co. v. Newton, 909 A.2d 811 (Pa. Super. 2006). Accordingly, the court overruled plaintiff's second preliminary objection.