Arturo P. Batac v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: February 16, 2023
• Docket: 22-31
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2022-31-Appeal. (PM 20-8084)

Arturo P. Batac :

v. :

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al. :

ORDER

This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on January 25,

2023, pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues

raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The plaintiff, Arturo P. Batac

(plaintiff), appeals pro se from a Superior Court order granting a motion by the

defendants, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Rushmore Loan Management

Services (collectively, defendants), to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint.

On appeal, the plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that the defendants improperly placed his

mortgage account into delinquency status, thereby preventing him from refinancing

his mortgage. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and

carefully reviewing the record, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown and

that the appeal may be decided at this time. For the reasons set forth herein, we

affirm the order of the Superior Court.

-1- At the outset, we note that plaintiff’s statement filed pursuant to Article I, Rule

12A of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure not only fails to assert any

claim of error on the part of the trial justice, but it also fails to coherently present

arguments in support of overturning the order of the Superior Court. The plaintiff’s

Rule 12A statement merely reiterates his belief that he was wronged by defendants

and that defendants’ actions violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. We have

consistently held that “simply stating an issue for appellate review, without a

meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court

in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that

issue.” Terzian v. Lombardi, 180 A.3d 555, 558 (R.I. 2018) (brackets omitted)

(quoting Horton v. Portsmouth Police Department, 22 A.3d 1115, 1130 (R.I. 2011)).

Further, as the trial justice correctly noted, plaintiff’s amended complaint fails

entirely to comply with the pleading requirements set forth in Rule 8 of the Superior

Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Of note, the amended complaint was filed after the

trial justice warned plaintiff that the original complaint was wholly insufficient and

afforded him additional time to file an amended complaint and the opportunity to

obtain counsel. The plaintiff’s amended complaint consists simply of broad

conclusory statements that defendants violated the law without stating how

defendants violated the law, and it does not set forth any facts or circumstances

-2- related thereto. Therefore, defendants were not provided with fair and adequate

notice of the type of claims being asserted by plaintiff as required by Rule 8.

While pro se litigants are often provided greater latitude by courts, “they are

not entitled to greater rights than those represented by counsel.” Terzian, 180 A.3d

at 558-59 (quoting Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580, 585

(R.I. 2005)). The trial justice provided the plaintiff with every opportunity to

obtain legal counsel, warned of the disadvantages of proceeding as a pro se

litigant, and explained the possible consequences of failing to adhere to our

pleading requirements and the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Before this

Court, the plaintiff again stated that he was wronged by the defendants but failed to

specify any errors purportedly made by the trial justice. We are simply unable to

adjudicate claims, regardless of whether the party is pro se or represented by counsel,

when the pleadings fail to comply with our most basic requirements.

Accordingly, the Superior Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to

dismiss is affirmed, and judgment shall enter in favor of the defendants. The record

may be returned to the Superior Court.

Entered as an Order of this Court this 16th ___ day of February, 2023.

By Order,

_____________________ /s/ Debra A. Saunders, Clerk

Clerk

-3- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Arturo P. Batac v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al.

No. 2022-31-Appeal Case Number (PM 20-8084)

Date Order Filed February 16, 2023

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Richard D. Raspallo

For Plaintiff:

Arturo P. Batac, Pro Se Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:

Rowdy M. Cloud, Esq. David E. Fialkow, Esq.

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)