With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2000). Stuart v. Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC, 2009 Pa. Super. 103, P4, 975 A.2d 1151, 1152 (2009)(emphasis in original). The facts in the instant matter are essentially those in Stuart. Plaintiff could have raised any violations of the Truth in Lending Act by defendants Beltway and MERS within the context of the foreclosure action but did not. Plaintiff’s property was property foreclosed upon in 2007, thus cutting off any attempt by plaintiff to rescind the mortgage. Plaintiff’s right to cancel the mortgage loan under the UTPCPL is likewise barred by res judicata because plaintiff’s claims under the UTPCPL could have been raised within the context of the mortgage foreclosure action. Rocco v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 255 Fed. Appx. 638, 643, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 27445, P12-13 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in the case at bar this court concluded

A: holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale
B: holding that the res judicata doctrine applied to bar the debtors from pursuing utpcpl claims in an attempt to undo the foreclosure judgment and void the sheriffs sale because those claims could have been pursued in the context of the foreclosure action
C: holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action
D: holding given language in agreement right of first refusal could not be exercised in context of a foreclosure sale
B.