Scheib, C. v. Rozberil, J. ( 2018 )

J-A02010-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CAROLE I. SCHEIB : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
JAMES ROZBERIL : No. 493 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order March 20, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s):
GD-16-003162
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2018
Carole I. Scheib appeals pro se from the March 20, 2017 order
dismissing this action. We dismiss this appeal as the matter involved in the
lawsuit is res judicata, this action was filed in violation of two orders
previously upheld by this Court, and Appellant’s arguments are
indecipherable.
On March 3, 2016, Appellant instituted this action in ejectment and to
quiet title by filing a pro se complaint asserting that she owned real estate
located at 54 Lawson Avenue, Pittsburgh, which Appellee purchased on
February 24, 2016. We have garnered the following facts from a previous
appeal filed by Appellant. Scheib v. Keystone Residential Properties,
LLC, 62 A.3d 449 (Pa.Super. 2012) (unpublished memorandum) (dismissing
appeal due to indecipherable argument and based upon the fact that the
matter of Appellant’s interest in 54 Lawson Avenue was res judicata).
J-A02010-18
Appellant previously owned 54 Lawson Avenue, but she and her husband
lost it in a 1998 foreclosure action brought by Mellon Bank, N.A. No appeal
was filed in the foreclosure case, and Appellant was evicted from the
property.
Appellant, on occasion assisted by her husband, thereafter began to
institute lawsuits wherein she claimed to own 54 Lawson Avenue, and those
cases were construed as collateral attacks on the validity of the foreclosure
action. Her repetitive attempts to litigate the question of whether she
owned the property in question resulted in the entry of a July 7, 2003 order
that prohibited Appellant from filing legal documents unless the documents
were drafted by an attorney or permitted by the court. This order was
affirmed on appeal. Scheib v. Port Authority Transit Company, 852
A.2d 1263 (Pa.Super. 2004) (unpublished memorandum) (noting that
Appellant had a history of filing, both in federal and state court,
indecipherable and frivolous court documents). Despite the July 7, 2003
order, Appellant filed a pro se action in 2012 against Keystone Residential
Properties, LLC, and Michael Bernick, and, in that lawsuit, she again asserted
that she owned 54 Lawson Avenue. In the 2012 case, the trial court
dismissed the action based upon the doctrine of res judicata, and it entered
an order specifically prohibiting Appellant from filing anything further
absent court approval. We affirmed both rulings on appeal. Scheib v.
Keystone Residential Properties, supra.
-2-
J-A02010-18
Appellee bought 54 Lawson Avenue on February 24, 2016, and,
despite the two orders prohibiting her from doing so, Appellant managed to
file this action against him on March 3, 2016. She again asserted that she
owned the property that she lost in the foreclosure action instituted nearly
twenty years ago. Once the trial court realized that this case was filed in
violation of the 2012 order enjoining Appellant from filing an action without
prior court approval, the trial court dismissed the case, and this appeal
followed.1
We dismiss this appeal because: 1) this matter is res judicata; 2)
Appellant should not have been allowed to file the lawsuit in the first
instance as two prior orders, which both were upheld on appeal, prohibited
her from doing so; and 3) the arguments that Appellant raise primarily
relate to the validity of the 1998 mortgage foreclosure proceeding and are
incomprehensible and incapable of being addressed. Ibn-Sadiika v.
Riester, 551 A.2d 1112, 1114 (Pa.Super. 1988) (“When an appellant fails to
carry forward, or is indecipherably vague in, argumentation upon a certain
point in his appellate brief, that point is waived.).
Appeal dismissed.
____________________________________________
1 Appellee moved to quash the appeal as frivolous, but that motion was
dismissed without prejudice.
-3-
J-A02010-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/12/2018
-4-