Cseplo, G. v. Scholtz, B.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 20, 2024
• Docket: 420 EDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A26031-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

GRETCHEN CSEPLO AND MICHAEL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CSEPLO : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellants : : : v. : : : No. 420 EDA 2023 BERNHARD W. SCHOLZ AND : JEANINE SCHOLZ, AND LINDA P. : DANESE, THOMAS E. HORA AND : LEITHBRIDGE COMPANY T/A : (KURFIS SOTHEBYS INT'L) :

Appeal from the Order Entered February 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2019-07901

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J. *

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 20, 2024

Appellants, Gretchen Cseplo and Michael Cseplo, appeal from the

February 3, 2023 order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees,

Bernhard W. Scholz, Jeanine Scholz, Linda P. Danese, Thomas E. Hora, and

Leithbridge Company T/A Kurfis Sothebys Int’l (collectively, “Appellees”) in

this action alleging that Appellees engaged in, inter alia, fraud and

misrepresentation in the course of selling property owned by the Scholzes to

Appellants. After careful review, we affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this matter are largely immaterial to

our disposition. Briefly, on August 2, 2019, Appellants purchased property ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A26031-23

from Bernhard and Jeanine Scholz (“Sellers”), who were represented in the

transaction by Linda P. Danese, Thomas E. Hora, and Leithbridge Company

T/A Kurfis Sothebys Int’l (“Agents”). In conjunction with the purchase,

Appellants executed a general release (the “Release”) releasing both Sellers

and Agents from liability from any claims arising from the transaction. Within

a few months of purchasing the property from Sellers, Appellants discovered

“numerous material defects or conditions” they believe Appellees had

concealed. Compl., 11/3/19, at ¶ 25. Appellants then filed this lawsuit

seeking damages and claiming that the Release was not binding due to

fraudulent misrepresentations of Appellees in the execution of the Release.

On February 10, 2022, Sellers filed a motion for summary judgment.

On February 25, 2022, Agents filed a motion for summary judgment.

Appellants filed responses to both motions. The trial court scheduled a hearing

on the motions, but, when the court was not able to hear argument on the

scheduled date, it entered an order denying the motions and directing that

the parties reargue the issues raised in the motions at the time of trial.

On December 5, 2022, the parties appeared for trial, prior to the

commencement of which the court considered Appellees’ motions for

summary judgment. The court permitted Appellants, over Appellees’

objections, to supplement the record with evidence, including testimony and

affidavits, pertaining to their position that the Release was not binding.

Following its consideration of the evidence and the parties’ arguments, on

-2- J-A26031-23

February 3, 2023, the trial court granted Appellees’ motions for summary

judgment and dismissed Appellants’ complaint.

This timely appeal followed. The trial court ordered Appellants to file a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In response, Appellants filed a Rule 1925(b)

statement that contained 29 allegations of trial court error and contained a

footnote reserving the right to unilaterally supplement their statement. The

trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Before we address the merits of Appellants’ issues on appeal, we

consider whether Appellants have preserved them for our review.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i) directs that an appellant set forth only “those

errors that the appellant intends to assert.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i).

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) requires an appellant to “concisely identify each

error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the

issue to be raised for the judge.” Id. at 1925(b)(4)(ii) (emphasis added).

“Issues not . . . raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph . .

. are waived.” Id. at 1925(b)(4)(vii); see also In re Estate of Daubert,

757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“[w]hen an appellant fails adequately

to identify in a concise manner the issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the

trial court is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent

to those issues.”); see also Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. Super.

2005) (finding that a Rule 1925(b) statement wherein the appellant raised 29

issues was “extravagant” and “makes it all but impossible for the trial court to

provide a comprehensive analysis of the issues”).

-3- J-A26031-23

In the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court observed that

Appellants’ “extravagant” Rule 1925(b) statement “does not conform to the

Rules of Appellate Procedure” as it, inter alia, contained redundant and

duplicative issues. Trial Ct. Op., 3/28/23, at 5-6 (citing Jones, 878 A.2d at

90). In addition, the court found that the “litany of complaints set forth in

[the Rule 1925(b) statement] ignore the actual record and ask for a review of

matters not ruled upon by the [c]ourt, which did not affect or control the

[c]ourt’s [d]ecision, and which are not proper matters for [a]ppeal.” 1 Id. at

6.

Following our review, we agree with the trial court that Appellants did

not raise their issues on appeal in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i)

and 1925(b)(4)(ii). Accordingly, their issues are waived.

Moreover, even if we were to overlook Appellants’ failure to comply with

the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), defects in Appellants’ brief to this

Court would preclude us from conducting meaningful appellate review.

Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or

dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v.

Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “When issues

____________________________________________

1 The court also noted that this Court has held that a party’s attempt to reserve

his right to unilaterally supplement a Rule 1925(b) statement is procedurally improper. Id. at 5 n.2 (citing Commonwealth v. Woods, 909 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 2006).

-4- J-A26031-23

are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly

inadequate to present specific issues for review[,] a [c]ourt will not consider

the merits thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d

939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). As this Court has made

clear, we “will not act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d

766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007).

Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) requires an appellant to include in his brief a

statement of questions involved that states “concisely the issues to be

resolved, expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without

unnecessary detail.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Pa.R.A.P. 2119 instructs an appellant

to divide the argument section of the appellate brief “into as many parts are

there are questions to be argued.” Id. at 2119(a). In addition, “[n]o question

will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or

is fairly suggested thereby.” Id. at 2116(a).

Rather than comply with our briefing rules, however, Appellants have

included in their appellate brief a statement of questions involved that consists

of a verbatim reproduction of their 29-issue Rule 1925(b) statement. They

have also included a footnote acknowledging this defect and attempting to

justify their failure to present to this Court a cogent, succinct statement of

questions. In addition, the argument section of Appellants’ brief consists of

two parts, one of which is divided into numerous subparts. None of these

parts correspond to, or are fairly suggested by, any of the questions listed in

the statement of questions involved in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2116 and 2119.

-5- J-A26031-23

Thus, even if Appellants had not waived their issues by failing to comply

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), the substantial defects in Appellants’ brief would

preclude our review.

Order affirmed.

Date: 6/20/2024

-6-