OPINION OF THE COURT

Gerald and Dawn Gesiorski, and Lil’ Bit of Chicago, Inc. appeal the District Court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) brought by Branch Banking & Trust Company. Appellants argue that the District Court erred by dismissing their claim for statutory damages under the Pennsylvania Mortgage Satisfaction Act. 21 P.S. § 721-6(d). ^[1] We will affirm.

There is no dispute that Appellants failed to pay the full mortgage obligation prior to foreclosure, making it impossible for them to prove “payment of the entire mortgage obligation and all required satisfaction and recording costs.” 21 P.S. § 721-6(d). Appellants argue that the debt was constructively discharged under the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 8103(b)), but there is no legal authority for the proposition that constructive discharge of the debt equates to “payment” of the mortgage for purposes of the Mortgage Satisfaction Act. Therefore, appellants could not and did not state a claim for damages under the referenced section of the Mortgage Satisfaction Act “that is plausible on its face.” Jones v. ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc., 606 F.3d 119, 123 (3d Cir.2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). The District Court did not err.

For these reasons we will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing the claim with prejudice.