George, H. v. Meltzer, P.

J-S68015-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
HELEN L. GEORGE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
PETER MELTZER, ESQUIRE, MICHAEL
EMERICK, ESQUIRE, VERNON
LITZINGER, JUBELIRER, CAROTHERS
KRIER, & HALPERN LAW FIRM,
Appellees No. 422 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered February 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2015 GN 1800
BEFORE: SHOGAN, SOLANO, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 5, 2016
Appellant Helen George, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial
court’s order dismissing her amended complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Civil Procedure 233.1. Upon review, we find Appellant’s claims
devoid of merit and affirm the order dismissing this action and barring
Appellant from further attempts to re-litigate issues previously resolved in
the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County.
On August 10, 2015, Appellant filed an amended complaint against her
former attorney, Michael Emerick (“Emerick”), an attorney who previously
represented Equity One Mortgage, Peter Meltzer (“Meltzer”), an adjoining
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S68015-16
landowner, Vernon Litzinger (“Litzinger”), and the law firm representing
Litzinger, Jubelirer, Carothers, Krier, and Halpern (the “Law Firm”) for, inter
alia, a violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. §§ 201-1, fraud, concealment of fraud,
and altered sheriff’s deed. The underlying controversy originated in
February of 2002 when Appellant obtained a $362,369.00 mortgage from
Equity One Mortgage Company that encumbered certain parcels of
Appellant’s real property.
The trial court cogently described the litigation spawned from this
initial transaction, as follows:
[Appellant] obtained a mortgage loan from Equity One
Mortgage Company (“Equity One”) in the amount of
$362,369.00 in February 2002. Pl. Amended Compl., Ex. A.
Plaintiff discovered that the mortgage was over–encumbered and
retained [Emerick] to release two parcels of land from the
mortgage. Id. at ¶ 7. A Complaint in Equity, Docket No. 2003
GN 465, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
on January 24, 2003. This initial action is the basis for the
instant action before the Court. During the initial action, a
Partial Release of “Parcel A and Parcel B” from [Appellant’s]
property was negotiated between [Emerick] and [Meltzer], which
left “Parcel C” as the encumbered property. Id. at ¶ 7. The
Partial Release was recorded on September 24, 2003, and the
initial action was discontinued with prejudice. Id., Ex. B.
[Appellant] subsequently defaulted on the mortgage loan;
as a result, Chase Manhattan Bank, as assignee of the Equity
One [M]ortgage, filed a Mortgage Foreclosure action against
[Appellant] in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
seeking to foreclose on Parcel C. Pl. Amended Compl. at ¶ 8.
Arthur Cohen, Esq., now deceased, represented [Appellant]
during the proceedings. The Hon. Thomas G. Peoples, Jr.,
presided over a non-jury trial and awarded judgment for Chase
Manhattan Bank against [Appellant]. Opinion and Order, June 5,
-2-
J-S68015-16
2005, Docket No. 2004 GN 1743. [Appellant] filed an appeal
with the Superior Court, which dismissed the appeal on
December 22, 2005, “because Appellant’s filings violate[d] the
rules of appellate procedure to such an extent that [the court
could not] conduct appellate review.” Helen George v. Equity
One Inc., 2147 WDA 2006 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).[1]
[Appellant], through Attorney Cohen, brought an action
against Equity One filed February 12, 2004, repeating the initial
action’s allegations that Equity One incorrectly over-encumbered
[Appellant’s] property. Opinion and Order, May 10, 2006,
Docket No. 2004 GN 731. [Appellant] also alleged violations of
the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law of
Pennsylvania and defamation by Equity One. Id. The Hon.
Hiram A. Carpenter III held that [Appellant’s] action was barred
by res judicata and granted Equity One’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on May 10, 2006. Id. [Appellant] filed an appeal with
the Superior Court, which quashed her appeal on August 24,
2007.
On December 1, 2006, [Appellant] filed a Praecipe for Lis
Pendens pro se against Equity One. Docket No. 2006 GN 6443.
Judge Carpenter struck the Lis Pendens against the property on
February 13, 2007.
[Appellant] then commenced a Legal Malpractice action pro
se against [Emerick] by filing a Praecipe for a Writ of Summons
on September 28, 2007. [Appellant] filed a Complaint on
May 27, 2008, and an Amended Complaint on July 9, 2008. In
____________________________________________
1
The trial court erroneously described the appellate disposition of the
mortgage foreclosure action. The docket entries attendant to 2004 GN 1743
actually reveal that this Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal as no issues had
been preserved for appellate review due to Appellant’s failure to file post-
trial motions. See Chase Manhattan Bank v. George, 1285 WDA 2005
(Pa. Super. filed October 6, 2005) (review of appeal from 2004 GN 1743).
Appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s order in Case No. 2004 GN 731,
reinstating a summary judgment award to Equity One, was quashed because
“Appellant’s indecipherable documents fail[ed] to present any discernable
issues and are so defective that we are completely unable to conduct
appellate review.” George v. Equity One, Inc., 2147 WDA 2006 (Pa.
Super. filed July 9, 2007) (unpublished memorandum at 1).
-3-
J-S68015-16
the Amended Complaint, [Appellant] alleged that [Emerick]
incorrectly identified the property originally intended to be
encumbered by the mortgage with Equity One and therefore the
Partial Release concerned incorrect properties. Amended Compl.
in Legal Malpractice at ¶¶ 11-15, 31-34. The Hon. Charles C.
Brown, specially presiding, granted [Emerick’s] Motion for
Summary Judgment on May 26, 2010, stating that [Appellant’s]
claim was time barred by the two (2) year statute of limitations
and [Appellant] failed to present an expert to establish a
deviation from the standard of care. Order, June 4, 2007,
Docket No. 2007 GN 5397. [Appellant] filed an appeal with the
Superior Court, which affirmed Judge Brown’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
Opinion on April 12, 2011. George, H. v Emerick, M., 1071 WDA
2010, (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
[Appellant] commenced a suit pro se against the Blair
County Tax Claim Bureau and the Blair County Tax Assessment
Bureau by filing a Praecipe for a Writ of Summons on March 15,
2012. A Complaint was filed on March 30, 2012 and an
Amended Complaint claiming “Negligent Misappropriation of
Taxes; Illegal Tax Foreclosure on [Appellant’s] Home; Parcel B.,
and Damages Thereof” was filed September 17, 2012. Pl.
Amended Tax Compl., p. 1. Judge Brown granted Defendants’
Preliminary Objections in the nature of a Demurrer on December
2, 2013, because [Appellant] failed to follow proper procedure in
filing her suit. Opinion and Order, Dec. 2, 2013, Docket No.
2012 GN 904.
[Appellant] commenced a Quiet Title action pro se against
[Litzinger], the purchaser of the property foreclosed on by Chase
Manhattan Bank and subsequently sold at a Sheriff’s Sale
(“Parcel C”) on May 9, 2014, by filing a Complaint. [Litzinger]
filed an Answer to [Appellant’s] Complaint with New Matter and
Counterclaim on June 16, 2014. On July 24, 2014, [Litzinger]
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings raising the issue of
res judicata. The Hon. Wade A. Kagarise granted [Litzinger’s]
Motion and dismissed the Quiet Title action with prejudice.
Order, Sept. 4, 2014, Docket No. 2014 GN 1349. [Appellant]
filed an appeal to the Superior Court on October 8, 2014. In his
Pa.R.A.P. 1925[a] Opinion, Judge Kagarise stated:
This Court’s review of the allegations in
[Appellant’s] present action lead this court to the
conclusion that [Appellant] seeks a ruling from this
-4-
J-S68015-16
Court concerning the property lines for this subject
property. She specifically indicates in her request for
relief that she “respectfully requests the clarification
of her property ownership.” The Court is constrained
to find that on numerous occasions her property
ownership in the subject property has already been
clarified. This Court sees no new issues in the
present matter that have not been previously
addressed.
1925[a] Opinion, Nov. 21, 2014, Docket No. 2014 GN 1349.
(emphasis added)[.]
The Superior Court quashed [Appellant’s] appeal on
March 31, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Judge Kagarise ordered
[Appellant] to pay counsel for [Litzinger] five hundred dollars
($500.00) within six (6) months as a sanction for “frivolous,
meritless, and...bad faith” litigation filed by [Appellant]. Order,
Oct. 26, 2010, Docket No. 2014 GN 1349. Judge Kagarise
deferred any consideration of further sanctions pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 until the conclusion of the instant action before
the Court. Id.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/22/16, at 2–7.
As noted, Appellant’s instant lawsuit alleges that all Appellees engaged
in deceptive business practices under the UTPCPL. She additionally claims
that attorneys Emerick and Meltzer: 1) forged or fraudulently tampered with
legal documents; 2) altered legal documents; 3) concealed legal documents;
4) breached a contract; 5) committed perjury; 6) knowingly submitted to
the trial court an altered description of the subject property with incorrect
boundary lines; 7) testified that the submitted maps were correct; 8)
“spoken under oath that ‘whatever Parcel C is on the submitted map of
Parcel C is what the Mortgage Company has to accept’” and, 8) “influenced
the Court by the altered subdivision.” Amended Complaint, 8/10/15, at ¶
-5-
J-S68015-16
46. The allegations against Litzinger and the Law Firm are muddled but
appear to assert that these parties colluded in preparing a forged deed to
the subject property. Id. at ¶¶ 64–72.
On August 28, 2015, Emerick filed preliminary objections to the
amended complaint and a separate motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
233.1.2 On August 31, 2015, Litzinger and the Law Firm filed their
preliminary objections, incorporating a motion to dismiss under Rule 233.1.
Meltzer did not file a responsive pleading.3 On January 20, 2016, the trial
court conducted oral argument on Appellees’ preliminary objections and
motions to dismiss and Appellant’s responses thereto. Subsequently, the
trial court granted the motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 233.1 and
dismissed the claims against Emerick, Litzinger, and the Law Firm, with
____________________________________________
2
Rule 233.1(a)(1) provides that “[u]pon the commencement of any action
filed by a pro se plaintiff in the court of common pleas, a defendant may file
a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that the pro se plaintiff is
alleging the same or related claims which the pro se plaintiff raised in a prior
action against the same or related defendants.” Rule 233.1(c) further
instructs that “[u]pon granting the motion and dismissing the action, the
court may bar the pro se plaintiff from pursuing additional pro se litigation
against the same or related defendants raising the same or related claims
without leave of court.” Pa.R.C.P. 233.1(a), (c).
3
The certified docket reveals that Meltzer was not served with original
process in the manner required by Pa.R.C.P. 402. Instead, it appears
Appellant attempted to serve Meltzer by certified mail; however, the trial
“[c]ourt did not authorize service through the mail.” Trial Court Opinion,
2/22/16, at 7. Meltzer has not participated in this litigation in any fashion.
In her brief, Appellant admits that she served Meltzer by certified mail, but
does not offer any argument that this method of service was permissible
under Pa.R.C.P. 403, allowing for service by mail in certain circumstances.
-6-
J-S68015-16
prejudice. The trial court’s order further barred Appellant “from pursuing
additional pro se litigation against the same or related defendants raising the
same or related claims without leave of court.” Order, 2/22/16, at 15.
On March 7, 2016, Appellant filed a pleading captioned: “Res Judicta
Judgment on the Merits Breach of Contract Fraud and Perjury Altered Sherrif
Deed Fraudulent Concealment.” The trial court treated the filing as a motion
for reconsideration and denied it on March 21, 2016. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal.
At this juncture, we would ordinarily identify the issues Appellant
requests that we review; however, the significant deficiencies in Appellant’s
brief, discussed infra, severely hamper identification of the questions
involved. That being said, within the morass of Appellant’s appellate
submission, we have discerned only one issue related to the trial court’s
dismissal of this action pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 223.1, stated by Appellant as
follows: “With all the prima face [sic] evidence submitted by [Appellant],
why would the Court dismiss fraud by Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 and 233.1(c)?”
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Prior to our consideration of the merits of Appellant’s claim, we must
address two preliminary matters. First, on August 11, 2016, Appellant filed
with this Court a document titled “Additional Discovery of Clear and
Convincing Evidence” which we construe as a motion to supplement the
-7-
J-S68015-16
record on appeal.4 The proposed evidence consists of certain documents
that Appellant recently received from a former attorney. Motion, 8/11/16, at
3–8. Appellant avers that these documents are relevant to the instant
proceeding and claims that she “has been told by Superior Court to submit
the newly discovered evidence to the Blair County Prothonotary for
admission and submission to forward new discovery to Superior Court.” Id.
at 2. However, the certified docket from the trial court does not
demonstrate that this new evidence was submitted to the Blair County
Prothonotary. Similarly, there is no entry on the appellate docket reflecting
any communication from this Court concerning supplementing the record.
In any event, we cannot consider Appellant’s alleged newly discovered
evidence. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1921, “[t]he
original papers and exhibits filed in the lower court, paper copies of legal
papers filed with the prothonotary by means of electronic filing, the
transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries
prepared by the clerk of the lower court” constitute the appellate record.
Pa.R.A.P. 1921. An appellate court may consider only the facts which have
been duly certified in the record on appeal. In re Fielder, 132 A.3d 1010,
1027 n.15 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citing Commonwealth v. Young, 317 A.2d
258, 264 (Pa. 1974)). A party to an appeal cannot therefore file a
____________________________________________
4
Appellant’s motion was deferred for disposition at the same time as the
merits of the appeal and is now ripe for resolution.
-8-
J-S68015-16
supplemental record containing documents that were not included in the
record certified from the trial court and were not part of the evidence
considered by the trial court in making its decision. Possessky v. Diem,
655 A.2d 1004, 1011 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1995). Thus, Appellant’s motion to
supplement the record on appeal is denied.
Second, we are compelled to address whether Appellant’s appeal is
waived because of numerous defects in her appellate brief. Appellant’s
arguments are barely decipherable and completely unsupported by legal
citation; thus, it would be well within our province to dismiss this appeal
based upon Appellant’s failure to file a brief in conformity with the rules of
appellate procedure. We decline to do so, however, because the trial court
adeptly clarified why dismissal under Rule 233.1 was necessary in this
matter, and we deem it essential that Appellant understand that she may no
longer clutter the trial court dockets with frivolous and repeated litigation
without leave of court.
As the trial court explained:
Rule 233.1 does not require the highly technical
prerequisites of res judicata or collateral estoppel to allow the
trial court to conclude that a pro se litigant’s claims are
adequately related to those addressed in prior litigation. Gray v.
Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829, 838 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012). Nor does it
require an identity of parties or the capacities in which they sued
or were sued. Id. Rather it requires a rational relationship
evident in the claims made and in the defendant’s relationships
with one another to inform the trial court’s conclusion that the
bar the Rule announces is justly applied. Id.
* * *
-9-
J-S68015-16
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has stated “certain
litigants are abusing the legal system by repeatedly filing new
litigation raising the same claims against the same defendant
even though the claims have been previously adjudicated either
through settlement or through court proceedings. New Rule
233.1 provides relief to a defendant who has been subjected to
this type of repetitive litigation.” Pa.R.C.P. 233.1, Explanatory
Comment—2010.
In the instant action before the Court, [Appellant] admits
“a litany of lawsuits were presented in hopes of correcting the
error” that [Appellant] perceives to have resulted from the
mortgaging of her property and the subsequent actions arising
from it. Pl. Amended Compl. at ¶ 27. Furthermore, [Appellant]
admits “a stigma follows [Appellant] in the Court as a person
wanting to repeat lawsuits when they were all adjudicated as res
judicta.” Id. [Appellant] is correct in her admissions.
[Appellant] has repeatedly brought lawsuits litigating the same
facts, parties, and legal questions, which have been resolved in
prior proceedings before the Court of Common Pleas of Blair
County. Multiple judges have dismissed [Appellant’s] previous
attempts at re-litigating these same facts and legal questions
before the Court. The Superior Court has repeatedly affirmed
the Courts[’] decisions and quashed Appellant’s appeals. This
Court declines to allow [Appellant] to continue with such
frivolous and vexatious litigation.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/22/16, at 11–12.
After careful review of the record in this case and the briefs of the
parties, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s well-reasoned
decision to dismiss Appellant’s lawsuit under Rule 233.1. See Coulter v.
Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1086 (Pa. Super. 2014) (a trial court’s decision to
grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 233.1 is reviewed for an abuse of that
court’s discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing
Appellant’s claims with prejudice and barring Appellant from pursuing pro se
- 10 -
J-S68015-16
litigation against the same or related parties raising the same or related
claims without leave of court.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/5/2016
- 11 -