Bank of America v. Noble, R.

J-A15011-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
REGINALD NOBLE YHWH AND :
TENANT/OCCUPANT :
:
:
APPEAL OF: REGINALD NOBLE YHWH : No. 3084 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 23, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 190501616
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KING, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED JULY 28, 2020
Appellant, Reginald Noble YHWH, appeals from the summary judgment
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of
Appellee, Bank of America, N.A., in this ejectment action. On March 5, 2019,
Appellee purchased at sheriff’s sale real property located at 1533 Orland
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19126 (“Property”). Appellee filed an
ejectment action against Appellant on May 15, 2019, to remove him and other
occupants from the Property. On June 5, 2019, Appellant filed an answer
claiming the sheriff’s sale was improper. Appellee filed a motion for summary
judgment on September 6, 2019. Appellant filed a response on September
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15011-20
23, 2019. On October 23, 2019, the court granted Appellee’s motion for
summary judgment, entered a judgment of ejectment against Appellant, and
gave Appellee immediate possession of the Property. Appellant timely filed a
pro se notice of appeal on October 28, 2019. On November 6, 2019, the court
ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors,
which Appellant timely filed on November 22, 2019.
Preliminarily, we recognize:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may quash
or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the
requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Id. Although this Court is willing to
liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se
status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the
contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal
proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his
lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.
In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 610
Pa. 600, 20 A.3d 489 (2011) (some internal citations omitted). See also
Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing specific requirements of each subsection of
appellate brief).
Instantly, Appellant’s “brief” on appeal is completely inadequate, lacking
the necessary statement of jurisdiction, relevant scope and standard of
review, statement of questions presented, and any coherent argument
section. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a) (discussing required content of appellate
briefs). See also Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa.Super. 1996)
-2-
J-A15011-20
(stating noncompliance with Rule 2116 is particularly grievous because
statement of questions involved defines specific issues for review). Appellant
provides no cogent legal arguments or relevant authority to support his
claims. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument shall be divided into as
many sections as there are questions presented, followed by discussion with
citation to relevant legal authority). These substantial defects preclude
meaningful review, warranting suppression of Appellant’s brief and dismissal
of the appeal.1 See In re Ullman, supra; Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Accordingly, we
suppress Appellant’s brief and dismiss his appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
____________________________________________
1 Moreover, the record supports the court’s entry of summary judgment in
favor of Appellee for the reasons stated in the trial court’s opinion. (See Trial
Court Opinion, filed January 21, 2019, at 2-5) (finding: Appellee attached to
its ejectment complaint recorded deed of Property, legally obtained by
Appellee when it purchased Property at sheriff’s sale; by attaching deed to
ejectment complaint, Appellee established its legal and proper ownership of
Property and Appellant’s unlawful occupancy of Property; Appellant has failed
to raise any issues of material fact in dispute regarding ejectment action;
Appellant has failed to provide any evidence to challenge sheriff’s sale deed
produced by Appellee; although Appellant insists foreclosure and subsequent
sheriff’s sale of Property was somehow improper, party to foreclosure action
cannot collaterally attack sheriff’s sale held in foreclosure action in subsequent
ejectment action; thus, summary judgment in favor of Appellee was proper).
-3-
J-A15011-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/28/2020
-4-