You wrote: I filed exceptions to the foreclosure sale. The basis for the appeal was that I questioned if residential credit solutions was the legal holder of the note
Response: Unfortunately, I can easily see why you lost at the exceptions hearing. It is improper to argue over who holds the note in foreclosure exceptions. That argument (and any argument questioning the underlying right of the plaintiff to foreclose) must be made prior to the sale in a Motion to Stay and Dismiss under Md. Rule 14-211. The only arguments allowed in an exceptions hearing after a sale are arguments relating to the sale itself. For example, it would be proper to argue that the sale was not properly advertised, or that notice of the sale was not sent to you, or that the Substitute Trustee was not present and available for questions about the sale. The seminal Maryland case on the subject is Bates v. Cohn, 417 Md. 309, 327, 9 A.3d 846, 857 (2010), in which the Court of Appeals stated:
Rule 14–305 is not an open portal through which any and all pre-sale objections may be filed as exceptions, without regard to the nature of the objection or when the operative basis underlying the objection arose and was known to the borrower. As we stated in Greenbriar, after a foreclosure sale, “the debtor's later filing of exceptions ... may challenge only procedural irregularities at the sale [...].
However, Gordon's treatise on Maryland foreclosures points out that "After the hearing on exceptions and the sale is ratified, Maryland Rule 2-535 (formerly Rule 625) would apply. Maryland Rule 2-535 states:
“(a) On motion of any party filed within 30 days after entry of judgment, the court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment and, if the action was tried before the court, may take any action that it could have taken under Rule 2-534 [admit new evidence, make new findings, enter different judgment, etc.]
(b) On motion of any party filed at any time, the court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity.
EXCEPTIONS, GOMF MD-CLE 1079
You will want to familiarize yourself with Gordon's treatise at the library. In any event, it appears that a motion to vacate the ratification of the sale may be in order since you found newly discovered evidence that the mortgage was paid in full, and that the foreclosure was, therefore, fraudulent.
Does that answer your question? Please let me know if you need clarification, as I am happy to continue helping you until you are satisfied.