McSorley, J. v. Paul, J.
Opinion
J-A28014-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
JOHN F. MCSORLEY, JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :
v. : : :
JOHN JAMES PAUL : :
Appellant : No. 1434 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered May 14, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2021-05278
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 16, 2025
John James Paul appeals from the order entered May 14, 2024, granting
judgment on the pleadings in favor of John F. McSorley, Jr., on his complaint
in ejectment. Paul argues the trial court erred in finding McSorley pled all
elements required for an action in ejectment, that Paul did not admit facts
that could be used against him in his pleadings, and there are disputed issues
of fact that must be further developed through discovery. We affirm on the
basis of the well-reasoned trial court opinion.
Based upon our disposition, a thorough recitation of the factual and
procedural history is unnecessary. For a more detailed recitation of the factual
and procedural history, we refer to the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion dated
July 15, 2024, which we attached hereto. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/24,
at 2-4. Briefly, McSorley filed a complaint in ejectment on October 5, 2021,
J-A28014-24
after he was removed from his property at 394 Rutgers Court, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania (“the Property”) when both parties cross-filed protection from
abuse (“PFA”) petitions. Both PFA petitions were granted. Paul’s PFA order
evicted and excluded McSorley from the Property. However, the order included
two important notes: (1) the eviction and exclusion provision “is vacated upon
[Paul’s] vacating of the residence” and (2) the PFA order “is not a stay for any
civil eviction proceedings.” Order, 9/22/21, at ¶¶ 2, 7. McSorley thereafter
filed his complaint in ejectment seeking possession of the Property. After
preliminary objections, an answer and new matter, and an answer to the new
matter, McSorley sought judgment on the pleadings. The court granted
judgment on the pleadings in favor of McSorley and ordered Paul to vacate
the Property within 10 days on May 14, 2024. Paul filed a timely appeal and
complied with the court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b).
Paul raises three issues for our review:
[1.] Whether the [c]ourt erred by granting [j]udgment on the [p]leadings in favor of [McSorley] and against [Paul] as [McSorley] has failed to plead all the required elements for an action in ejectment[?]
[2.] Whether the [c]ourt erred by granting [j]udgment on the [p]leadings in favor of [McSorley] and against [Paul] despite the fact that [Paul] has not admitted facts in [his] pleadings which could be considered against [Paul?]
[3.] Whether there are disputed issues of fact which could be considered by a [j]udge or [j]ury and which could further be developed through proper discovery[?]
J-A28014-24
Appellant’s Brief, at 2 (suggested answers omitted).
The well-established scope and standard of review regarding the grant
of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is as follows:
Our scope of review on an appeal from the grant of judgment on the pleadings is plenary. Entry of judgment on the pleadings is permitted under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034, which provides that “after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Pa.R.C.P. 1034(a). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer. It may be entered when there are no disputed issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining if there is a dispute as to facts, the court must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. On appeal, we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint.
On appeal, our task is to determine whether the trial court’s ruling was based on a clear error of law or whether there were facts disclosed by the pleadings which should properly be tried before a jury or by a judge sitting without a jury.
Neither party can be deemed to have admitted either conclusions of law or unjustified inferences. Moreover, conducting its inquiry, the court should confine itself to the pleadings themselves and any documents or exhibits properly attached to them. It may not consider inadmissible evidence in determining a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Only when the moving party’s case is clear and free from doubt such that a trial would prove fruitless will an appellate court affirm a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., 170 A.3d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the
Honorable Matthew D. Weintraub’s comprehensive opinion dated July 15,
J-A28014-24
2024, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting judgment on the
pleadings in favor of McSorley. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/24, at 7-16
(holding Paul did not dispute the validity of the deed for the Property, attached
to McSorley’s complaint, that established McSorley owned the Property in fee
simple, he was a bona fide purchaser, and evidenced his right to possession;
Paul did not dispute the validity of the PFA orders attached to McSorley’s
complaint that evidenced McSorley was not permitted on the Property unless
and until Paul vacated the Property; Paul is actively occupying the Property;
and Paul’s financial contributions over 21 years not related to the Property,
which was owned for only the last 7 of those 21 years, are irrelevant for
determining whether McSorley is entitled to possession of the Property).
For the convenience of the parties, we have attached the well-written
and thorough 16-page opinion of the Honorable Matthew D. Weintraub, dated
July 15, 2024, filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Based upon our disposition, we deny as moot McSorley’s motion to
quash this appeal.
Order affirmed.
Date: 1/16/2025
é-Riled Circulated 2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. 01/03/2025 (PA. R.A.P. 11:25 Page 1925(A)), AM 1
No Mo ullish
PPublish
IN IN THE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL CIVIL DIVISION DIVISION
JOHN JOHN F.F. MCSORLEY, MCSORLEY, JR., JR., e.s' é SA
Plaintiff/Appellee, Plaintiff/Appellee,
No. No. 2021-05278
2021-05278
V.V. 1434 EDA 2024 1434 EDA 2024
fe« ene ·0¥"
s
JOHN JOHN JAMES JAMES PAUL, PAUL, 9 , Defendant/Appellant. Defendant/Appellant. :
TRIAL TRIAL COURT’S COURT'S 1925(a) 1925(a) OPINION OPINION
John John James James Paul Paul (“Defendant/Appellant’) ("Defendant/Appellant") hereby hereby appeals
appeals to
to the
the
Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania from from the the Order Order issued
issued by
by the
the Bucks
Bucks County
County
Court Court of of Common Common Pleas Pleas on on May May 14, 14, 2024, 2024, by by the the Honorable
Honorable Matthew
Matthew D.
D.
ID 13704619 - JUDGE:45 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary 6n 07/15/2024 2:55 PM,
Weintraub. Weintraub. . The The Order, Order, entered entered inin accordance accordance with
with B.C.R.C.P.
B.C.R.C.P. 208.3(b),
208.3(b),
granted granted judgment judgment on on the the pleadings pleadings inin favor favor of
of John
John F.F. McSorley,
Mcsorley, Jr,
Jr.,
(“Plaintiff/Appellee”) ("Plaintiff/Appellee") inin his his Motion Motion for for Ejectment Ejectment concerning
concerning the
the property
property
located located atat 394 394 Rutgers Rutgers Court, Court, Bensalem, Bensalem, Bucks Bucks County,
County, Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania,
Main (Public) McSorley v. Paul Opinion 7.15.24, Code: 5214, Rept: 22826044
19020 19020 ("the ("the Subject Subject Property”). Property"). Furthermore, Furthermore, itit ordered ordered Appellant
Appellant to
to vacate
vacate
the the premises premises within within aa period period of of ten ten (10) (10) calendar calendar days.
days.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A28014-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
JOHN F. MCSORLEY, JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA :
v. : : :
JOHN JAMES PAUL : :
Appellant : No. 1434 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered May 14, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2021-05278
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and NICHOLS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 16, 2025
John James Paul appeals from the order entered May 14, 2024, granting
judgment on the pleadings in favor of John F. McSorley, Jr., on his complaint
in ejectment. Paul argues the trial court erred in finding McSorley pled all
elements required for an action in ejectment, that Paul did not admit facts
that could be used against him in his pleadings, and there are disputed issues
of fact that must be further developed through discovery. We affirm on the
basis of the well-reasoned trial court opinion.
Based upon our disposition, a thorough recitation of the factual and
procedural history is unnecessary. For a more detailed recitation of the factual
and procedural history, we refer to the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion dated
July 15, 2024, which we attached hereto. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/24,
at 2-4. Briefly, McSorley filed a complaint in ejectment on October 5, 2021,
J-A28014-24
after he was removed from his property at 394 Rutgers Court, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania (“the Property”) when both parties cross-filed protection from
abuse (“PFA”) petitions. Both PFA petitions were granted. Paul’s PFA order
evicted and excluded McSorley from the Property. However, the order included
two important notes: (1) the eviction and exclusion provision “is vacated upon
[Paul’s] vacating of the residence” and (2) the PFA order “is not a stay for any
civil eviction proceedings.” Order, 9/22/21, at ¶¶ 2, 7. McSorley thereafter
filed his complaint in ejectment seeking possession of the Property. After
preliminary objections, an answer and new matter, and an answer to the new
matter, McSorley sought judgment on the pleadings. The court granted
judgment on the pleadings in favor of McSorley and ordered Paul to vacate
the Property within 10 days on May 14, 2024. Paul filed a timely appeal and
complied with the court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b).
Paul raises three issues for our review:
[1.] Whether the [c]ourt erred by granting [j]udgment on the [p]leadings in favor of [McSorley] and against [Paul] as [McSorley] has failed to plead all the required elements for an action in ejectment[?]
[2.] Whether the [c]ourt erred by granting [j]udgment on the [p]leadings in favor of [McSorley] and against [Paul] despite the fact that [Paul] has not admitted facts in [his] pleadings which could be considered against [Paul?]
[3.] Whether there are disputed issues of fact which could be considered by a [j]udge or [j]ury and which could further be developed through proper discovery[?]
J-A28014-24
Appellant’s Brief, at 2 (suggested answers omitted).
The well-established scope and standard of review regarding the grant
of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is as follows:
Our scope of review on an appeal from the grant of judgment on the pleadings is plenary. Entry of judgment on the pleadings is permitted under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034, which provides that “after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Pa.R.C.P. 1034(a). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer. It may be entered when there are no disputed issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining if there is a dispute as to facts, the court must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. On appeal, we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint.
On appeal, our task is to determine whether the trial court’s ruling was based on a clear error of law or whether there were facts disclosed by the pleadings which should properly be tried before a jury or by a judge sitting without a jury.
Neither party can be deemed to have admitted either conclusions of law or unjustified inferences. Moreover, conducting its inquiry, the court should confine itself to the pleadings themselves and any documents or exhibits properly attached to them. It may not consider inadmissible evidence in determining a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Only when the moving party’s case is clear and free from doubt such that a trial would prove fruitless will an appellate court affirm a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., 170 A.3d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the
Honorable Matthew D. Weintraub’s comprehensive opinion dated July 15,
J-A28014-24
2024, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting judgment on the
pleadings in favor of McSorley. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/24, at 7-16
(holding Paul did not dispute the validity of the deed for the Property, attached
to McSorley’s complaint, that established McSorley owned the Property in fee
simple, he was a bona fide purchaser, and evidenced his right to possession;
Paul did not dispute the validity of the PFA orders attached to McSorley’s
complaint that evidenced McSorley was not permitted on the Property unless
and until Paul vacated the Property; Paul is actively occupying the Property;
and Paul’s financial contributions over 21 years not related to the Property,
which was owned for only the last 7 of those 21 years, are irrelevant for
determining whether McSorley is entitled to possession of the Property).
For the convenience of the parties, we have attached the well-written
and thorough 16-page opinion of the Honorable Matthew D. Weintraub, dated
July 15, 2024, filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Based upon our disposition, we deny as moot McSorley’s motion to
quash this appeal.
Order affirmed.
Date: 1/16/2025
é-Riled Circulated 2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. 01/03/2025 (PA. R.A.P. 11:25 Page 1925(A)), AM 1
No Mo ullish
PPublish
IN IN THE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL CIVIL DIVISION DIVISION
JOHN JOHN F.F. MCSORLEY, MCSORLEY, JR., JR., e.s' é SA
Plaintiff/Appellee, Plaintiff/Appellee,
No. No. 2021-05278
2021-05278
V.V. 1434 EDA 2024 1434 EDA 2024
fe« ene ·0¥"
s
JOHN JOHN JAMES JAMES PAUL, PAUL, 9 , Defendant/Appellant. Defendant/Appellant. :
TRIAL TRIAL COURT’S COURT'S 1925(a) 1925(a) OPINION OPINION
John John James James Paul Paul (“Defendant/Appellant’) ("Defendant/Appellant") hereby hereby appeals
appeals to
to the
the
Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania from from the the Order Order issued
issued by
by the
the Bucks
Bucks County
County
Court Court of of Common Common Pleas Pleas on on May May 14, 14, 2024, 2024, by by the the Honorable
Honorable Matthew
Matthew D.
D.
ID 13704619 - JUDGE:45 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary 6n 07/15/2024 2:55 PM,
Weintraub. Weintraub. . The The Order, Order, entered entered inin accordance accordance with
with B.C.R.C.P.
B.C.R.C.P. 208.3(b),
208.3(b),
granted granted judgment judgment on on the the pleadings pleadings inin favor favor of
of John
John F.F. McSorley,
Mcsorley, Jr,
Jr.,
(“Plaintiff/Appellee”) ("Plaintiff/Appellee") inin his his Motion Motion for for Ejectment Ejectment concerning
concerning the
the property
property
located located atat 394 394 Rutgers Rutgers Court, Court, Bensalem, Bensalem, Bucks Bucks County,
County, Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania,
Main (Public) McSorley v. Paul Opinion 7.15.24, Code: 5214, Rept: 22826044
19020 19020 ("the ("the Subject Subject Property”). Property"). Furthermore, Furthermore, itit ordered ordered Appellant
Appellant to
to vacate
vacate
the the premises premises within within aa period period of of ten ten (10) (10) calendar calendar days.
days.
No No Motion Motion for for Reconsideration Reconsideration was was filed filed inin this
this matter.
matter. Subsequently,
Subsequently,
on on May May 23, 23, 2024, 2024, Appellant Appellant submitted submitted aa Notice Notice ofof Appeal
Appeal concurrently
concurrently with
with
aa Motion Motion toto Obtain Obtain Supersedeas, Supersedeas, seeking seeking aa stay
stay ofof eviction
eviction proceedings
proceedings
during during the the pendency pendency ofof the the appeal appeal process. process. On
On May
May 29,
29, 2024,
2024, this
this court
court
issued issued an an Order Order granting granting the the Motion Motion toto Obtain Obtain Supersedeas
S_upersedeas and
and directed
Case# 2021-05278
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 2 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
Appellant Appellant to
to furnish
furnish aa Concise
Concise Statement
Statement of Matters Complained of Matters Complained of
of on
on
Appeal, Appeal, as
as required
required by
by Pa.
Pa. R.A.P.
R.A.P. §§ 1925(b).
1925(b). The aforementioned Statement The aforementioned Statement
was was filed
filed by
by Appellant
Appellant on
on June
June 18,
18, 2024.
2024.
InIn accordance
accordance with
with Pa.
Pa. R.A.P.
R.A.P. §§ 1925(a), this trial 1925(a), this trial court now submits court now submits
its its Opinion
Opinion as
as an
an additional
additional component
component to
to the
the record, reaffirming its record, reaffirming its
determinations determinations and
and prior
prior Order.
Order.
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
On On October
October 5,5, 2021,
2021, Appellee
Appellee commenced
commenced legal
legal proceedings
proceedings by
by filing
filing
aa Complaint
Complaint for
for Real
Real Property
Property inin Ejectment.
Ejectment. This
This filing
filing included
included exhibits,
exhibits,
namely namely aa deed
deed asserting
asserting sole
sole ownership
ownership of
of the
the Subject
Subject Property,
Property, and
and
Protection Protection from
from Abuse
Abuse Orders
Orders (“PFA
("PFA Orders”),
Orders"), which
which Appellee
Appellee contends
contends
mandated mandated his
his temporary
temporary eviction
eviction from
from the
the Subject
Subject Property
Property from
from September
September
2021 2021 toto February
February 2022.
2022. Subsequently,
Subsequently, on
on November
November 1,1, 2021,
2021, Appellant
Appellant
raised raised preliminary
preliminary objections
objections to
to the
the Complaint,
Complaint, and
and on
on November
November 19,
19, 2021,
2021,
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
Appellee Appellee responded
responded with
with an
an Amended
Amended Complaint.
Complaint. No No jury
jury trial
trial was
was
requested. requested.
The The pleadings
pleadings indicate
indicate that
that the
the parties
parties maintained
maintained aa domestic
domestic
partnership partnership for
for approximately
approximately twenty-one
twenty-one (21)
(21) years,
years, during
during which
which they
they
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
cohabitated cohabitated atat the
the Subject
Subject Property
Property for
for about
about seven
seven (7)
(7) years
years until
until
September September 22,
22, 2021.
2021. On
On that
that date,
date, both
both parties
parties were
were subject
subject toto distinct
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 3 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
cross-filed PFA Orders, cross-filed PFA Orders, each each effective
effective until February 20, until February 20, 2022.
2022. Appellant's
Appellant’s
PFA PFA Order
Order directed
directed Appellee
Appellee to
to vacate
vacate the
the Subject Property and
Subject Property and included included a
a
section section which
which stated
stated “[t]his
"[t]his provision
provision [would
[would be] vacated upon
be] vacated upon [Appellant's]
[Appellant’s]
vacating vacating of
of the
the residence.”
residence." JJP
JJP PFA
PFA Order
Order 09/22/21, p. 2.
09/22/21, p. 2. Both
Both PFA
PFA Orders
Orders
explicitly explicitly stated
stated that
that “[t]he
"[t]he entry
entry of
of the
the PFAis
PFA is NOT
NOT aa stay
stay on
on any
any civil
civil eviction
eviction
proceedings.” proceedings." JFM
JFM PFA
PFA Order
Order 09/22/21,
09/22/21, p.p. 4;4; JJP
JJP PFA
PFA Order
Order 09/22/21,
09/22/21, p.p. 3.3.
This This directive
directive means
means that
that neither
neither PFA
PFA legally
legally restricts
restricts or
or prevents
prevents Appellee’s
Appel lee's
instant instant Complaint
Complaint for
for Real
Real Property
Property inin Ejectment
Ejectment against
against Appellant.
Appellant.
On On December
December 8,8, 2021,
2021, Appellant
Appellant filed
filed an
an Answer
Answer with
with New
New Matter,
Matter,
asserting asserting that
that his
his removal
removal from
from the
the Subject
Subject Property
Property would
would result
result inin his
his
homelessness homelessness due
due to
to his
his handicap.
handicap. Additionally,
Additionally, he
he claimed
claimed that
that he
he made
made
contributions contributions toto increase increase the
the property’s
property's value
value through
through repairs,
repairs, and
and expenses
expenses
related related toto tax
tax obligations
obligations over
over the
the relationship’s
relationship's duration,
duration, although
although he
he
provided provided no
no supporting
supporting documentation
documentation or
or narrative
narrative account.
account. Appellee Appellee
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
submitted submitted an
an Answer
Answer on
on December
December 13,
13, 2021.
2021.
On On January
January 14,
14, 2022,
2022, Appellee
Appellee filed
filed aa motion
motion for
for judgment
judgment on
on the
the
pleadings. pleadings. Appellant
Appellant replied
replied on
on February
February 3,3, 2022,
2022, arguing
arguing that
that Appellee
Appel lee had
had
not not proven
proven ownership
ownership of
of the
the Subject
Subject Property
Property and,
and, therefore,
therefore, Appellant
Appellant
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
should should maintain
maintain immediate
immediate possession.
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 4 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
On February On 2024, Appellee February 7,7, 2024, filed aa Praecipe Appellee filed under B.C.R.C.P.
Praecipe under B.C.R.C.P.
seeking judgment
208.3(b ), seeking 208.3(b), the pleadings.
on the
judgment on Briefs were pleadings. Briefs submitted and were submitted and
forwarded the Honorable to the
forwarded to D. Weintraub Matthew D.
Honorable Matthew on February Weintraub on 2024, for 21, 2024,
February 21, for
adjudication. adjudication.
On 14, 2024,
May 14, On May on the judgment on
2024, aa judgment pleadings was the pleadings rendered inin favor was rendered favor
Appellant, directing of Appellant, of Appellant's possession directing Appellant’s the Subject possession ofof the Property, and Subject Property, and
Appellee’s from itit within ejectment from
Appellee's ejectment (10) days.
ten (10)
within ten response, on days. InIn response, May 23, on May 23,
Appellant filed
2024, Appellant 2024, Notice ofof Appeal filed aa Notice together with Appeal together Motion toto Obtain with Motion Obtain
Appellee's Response
Supersedeas. Appellee’s Supersedeas. Opposition came Response inin Opposition on May came on 28, 2024.
May 28, 2024.
Judge Weintraub Judge granted Appellant’s Weintraub granted stay ofof eviction Appellant's stay pending his eviction pending his
appeal on May appeal on 29, 2024.
May 29, 2024.
STATEMENT OF STATEMENT ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ERRORS ON APPEAL OF ON
COMPLAINED OF APPEAL
On appeal, On Appellant has
appeal, Appellant raised the has raised following issues:
the following issues:
Court erred
The Court
1.1. The granting Judgment by granting
erred by the Pleadings on the
Judgment on favor ofof Pleadings inin favor
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
Plaintiff (“Appellee”)
the Plaintiff the and against ("Appellee") and the Defendant against the ("Appellant") as Defendant (“Appellant”) as
("Appellee") has
Plaintiff (“Appellee”) Plaintiff plead all failed toto plead
has failed the required all the elements for required elements for
action inin ejectment. an action an ejectment.
Court erred
The Court
2.2. The granting Judgment erred byby granting the Pleadings on the
Judgment on favor ofof Pleadings inin favor
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
the Plaintiff the ("Appellee") and Plaintiff (“Appellee”) against the and against Defendant (“Appellant”)
the Defendant ("Appellant")
the fact
despite the despite the Defendant that the
fact that ("Appellant") has Defendant (“Appellant”) not admitted has not admitted
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 5 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
facts facts inin their
their pleadings
pleadings which
which could
could be considered against be considered against the the
Defendant Defendant (“Appellant”)
("Appellant") by
by the
the Court
Court at this time.
at this time.
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
AA motion
motion for
for judgment
judgment on
on the
the pleadings,
pleadings, as
as distinguished from a
distinguished from a motion motion
for for summary
summary judgment,
judgment, isis filed
filed at
at the
the completion
completion of
of pleadings
pleadings and is
and is
supported supported solely
solely by
by the
the documents
documents filed
filed inin accordance
accordance with
with Pa.
Pa. R.C.P.
R.C.P. No.
No.
1034. 1034. When
When adjudicating
adjudicating such
such aa motion,
motion, the
the court
court isis limited
limited to
to considering
considering
only only the
the pleadings
pleadings and
and answers
answers thereto;
thereto; affidavits
affidavits or
or depositions
depositions are
are not
not
admissible, admissible, and
and no
no additional
additional matters
matters beyond
beyond the
the pleadings
pleadings are
are entertained
entertained
by by the
the court.
court. DiAndrea
DiAndrea v.v. Reliance
Reliance Sav.
Sav. and
and Loan
Loan Ass’n,
Ass'n, 456
456 A.2d
A.2d 1066
1066 (Pa.
(Pa.
Super. Super. 1983),
1983).
InIn cases
cases where
where aa motion
motion for
for judgment
judgment on
on the
the pleadings
pleadings isis closely
closely
contested, contested, itit isis preferable preferable toto defer
defer aa decision
decision and
and await
await the
the submission
submission of
of
affidavits affidavits and
and depositions
depositions for
for more
more appropriate
appropriate consideration consideration under
under aa motion
motion
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
for for summary
summary judgment.
judgment. Del
Del Quadro
Quadro v.v. City
City of
of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, 437
437 A.2d
A.2d 1262
1262
(Pa. 1981).). (Pa. 1981
InIn situations
situations where
where both
both parties
parties largely
largely agree
agree on
on the
the facts
facts of
of the
the case
case
and and only
only “strictly
"strictly questions
questions of
of law’
law" remain,
remain, where
where “there
"there [is]
[is] no
no dispute
dispute ofof fact
fact
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
toto be
be submitted
submitted for
for determination,
determination, the
the entry
entry of
of judgment
judgment on
on pleadings
pleadings [is]
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 6 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
proper.” proper." Shepherd
Shepherd v.v. General
General Tel.
Tel. && Electronics Corp., 190 Electronics Corp., 190 A.2d A.2d 896,
896, 901
901
(Pa. 1962). (Pa. 1962).
1.1. The
The court
court erred
erred byby granting
granting Judgment
Judgment onon the
the Pleadings
Pleadings
in in favor
favor ofof the
the Plaintiff
Plaintiff (“Appellee”) and against ("Appellee") and against the the
Defendant (“Appellant”) as Plaintiff (“Appellee”) has Defendant ("Appellant") as Plaintiff ("Appellee") has failed to failed to plead
plead all
all the
the required
required elements
elements for
for an
an action in
action in
ejectment. ejectment.
Appellant's Appellant's primary
primary contention
contention concerns
concerns the
the court’s
court's determination
determination that
that
Appellee Appellee met
met all
all requisites
requisites for
for eviction
eviction based
based solely
solely on
on the
the pleadings,
pleadings,
particularly particularly inin light
light of
of his
his disability
disability and
and alleged
alleged sweat
sweat equity
equity inin the
the property
property
for for which
which he
he seeks
seeks credit.
credit. The
The Supreme
Supreme Court
Court set
set forth
forth foundational
foundational
principles principles for
for eviction
eviction inin Taylor
Taylor v.v. Anderson,
Anderson. 234
234 U.S.
U.S. 74
74 (1914),
(1914), declaring:
declaring:
“[t]he "[t]he petition
petition alleged
alleged that
that the
the plaintiffs
plaintiffs were
were owners
owners inin fee
fee and
and
entitled entitled to
to the
the possession;
possession; that
that the
the defendants
defendants had had forcibly forcibly taken
taken
possession possession and and were were wrongfully
wrongfully keeping
keeping the the plaintiffs plaintiffs out
out ofof
possession; possession; and and that that the
the latter
latter were
were damaged
damaged thereby
thereby inin aa sum
sum
named. named. Nothing
Nothing more
more waswas required
required to to state
state aa good
good cause
cause of of
action.” action."
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
This This framework
framework was
was further
further affirmed
affirmed by
by the
the United
United States
States Court
Court of
of Appeals
Appeals
for for the
the Third
Third Circuit
Circuit inin Lang
Lang v.v. Colonial
Colonial Pipeline
Pipeline Co.,
Co., 266
266 F.F. Supp.
Supp. 552,
552, 556
556
(E.D. (E.D. Pa.
Pa. 1967),
1967), aff'd
aff'd per
per curiam,
curiam, 383
383 F.2d
F.2d 986
986 (3d
(3d Cir.
Cir. 1967),
1967), which
which
mandates mandates the
the essential
essential elements
elements toto include,
include, “(1)
"(1) plaintiff's
plaintiff's allegations
allegations on
on their
their
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
ownership ownership and
and right
right toto possession,
possession, (2)
(2) the
the defendant’s
defendant's wrongful
wrongful possession,
possession,
and and (3)
(3) the
the request
request for
for relief.”
relief."
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 7 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
a. a. Whether
Whether Plaintiff
Plaintiff (“Appellee”)
("Appellee") asserts
asserts his his
ownership and right to possession? ownership and right to possession?
Under Under Pa.
Pa. R.C.P.
R.C.P. Rule
Rule 1054,
1054, inin an
an ejectment action, "the ejectment action, “the plaintiff plaintiff shall
shall
describe describe the
the land
land inin the
the complaint”
complaint" upon
upon which their claim
which their claim isis based.
based. The
The
description description must
must provide
provide reasonable
reasonable certainty,
certainty, “set[ting] forth in "set[ting] forth in the
the complaint
complaint
or or answer
answer an
an abstract
abstract of
of the
the title
title upon
upon which
which the
the party
party relies...”
relies ..." Id.
lad.
Appellee’s Appel lee's Complaint,
Complaint, accompanied
accompanied by
by “Exhibit
"Exhibit A,”
A," presents
presents aa deed
deed
affirming affirming his
his fee
fee simple
simple ownership
ownership of
of the
the property,
property, acquired
acquired on
on October
October 31,
31,
2014. 2014. This
This deed
deed was
was duly
duly recorded
recorded with
with the
the Bucks
Bucks County
County Recorder
Recorder of
of
Deeds Deeds on
on November
November 6,6, 2014,
2014, under
under Instrument
Instrument No.
No. 2014061697
2014061697 and
and
certified certified on
on date
date of
of same.
same. The
The document
document identifies
identifies Appellee,
Appellee, John
John F.F.
McSorley, Mcsorley, Jr,
Jr., as
as the
the sole
sole grantee
grantee and
and owner,
owner, signifying
signifying the
the property’s
property's
transfer transfer from
from his
his predecessor
predecessor inin interest interest for
for valid
valid consideration.
consideration. This
This deed
deed
states: states:
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
To To have
have and
and toto hold
hold the
the said
said lot
lot or
or piece
piece ofof ground
ground described
described
[below], [below], with
with the
the buildings
buildings and
and improvements
improvements thereon
thereon erected,
erected,
hereditaments hereditaments and and premises premises hereby
hereby granted,
granted, or or mentioned
mentioned and
and
intended intended soso toto be,
be, with
with the
the appurtenances,
appurtenances, unto unto the the said
said
Grantee, Grantee, his
his heirs
heirs and
and assigns,
assigns, toto and
and for
for the
the only
only proper
proper use
use
and and behoof
behoof ofof the
the said
said Grantee,
Grantee, his
his heirs
heirs and
and assigns,
assigns, forever.
forever.
Appellee’s Appellee's predecessor
predecessor acquired
acquired the
the Subject
Subject Property
Property inin fee
fee simple
simple
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
from from aa Bucks
Bucks County
County corporation
corporation around
around December
December 12,
12, 2008,
2008, as
as evidenced
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 8 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
by her by recorded deed,
her recorded deed, subsequently subsequently transferring this interest transferring this interest to to Appellee
Appellee
alone alone with
with aa certified
certified recording
recording of
of transfer
transfer filed
filed on November 6,
on November 6, 2014.
2014.
Additionally, Additionally, documentation documentation from
from Bucks County Abstract Bucks County Abstract Services, Services,
LLC, LLC, confirms
confirms Appellee
Appellee as
as the
the sole
sole grantee on the
grantee on the deed,
deed, with
with his
his
predecessor predecessor identified
identified as
as the
the sole
sole grantor.
granter. Appellant
Appellant acknowledged
acknowledged this
this fact,
fact,
stating stating that
that the
the “[deed]
"[deed] isis aa document
document which
which speaks
speaks for
for itself.”
itself." Deft.
Deft. Answer
Answer
&& New
New Matter 7 5.5.
Matter []
The The deed
deed describes
describes the
the property
property with
with reasonable
reasonable certainty
certainty as
as
condominium condominium Unit
Unit 392
392 within
within Bensalem
Bensalem Village,
Village, located
located at
at 394
394 Rutgers
Rutgers
Court, Court, Bensalem,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania, 19020,
19020, with
with Bucks
Bucks County
County tax
tax parcel
parcel
number number 02-094-394.
02-094-394. The
The Subject
Subject Property
Property isis situated
situated or
or “located
"located inin
Bensalem Bensalem Township,
Township, Bucks
Bucks County,
County, Commonwealth
Commonwealth of
of Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania, and
and
specifically specifically atat the
the Northwesterly
Northwesterly side
side of
of Bensalem
Bensalem Boulevard
Boulevard (formerly
(formerly
Newportville Newportville Road)
Road) and
and the
the Southwesterly
Southwesterly side
side of
of Byberry
Byberry Road.”
Road."
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
The The deed
deed references
references various
various focal
local publications
publications including including the
the
Declaration Declaration ofof Condominium, Condominium, Office
Office of
of the
the Recorder
Recorder of
of Deeds
Deeds of
of Bucks
Bucks
County, County, and
and the
the Amended
Amended Plan
Plan ofof Bensalem
Bensalem Village,
Village, all
all corroborating
corroborating the
the
property’s property's description.
description. No
No objections
objections have
have been
been raised
raised regarding
regarding these
these
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
documents documents by
by Appellant.
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 9 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
Of particular significance Of particular significance isis page page three
three (3)
(3) of the deed,
of the deed, where
where all
all parties
parties
signed signed inin the
the presence
presence of
of aa Notary
Notary Public,
Public, formalizing
formalizing itit on
on October
October 31,
31, 2014.
2014.
This This page
page also
also bears
bears the
the signature
signature of
of aa witness acting "[o]n witness acting “[o]n behalf behalf of
of the
the
Grantee.” Grantee."
The The validity
validity of
of the
the deed
deed remains
remains undisputed
undisputed by
by either
either party.
party. Appellant
Appellant
has has referenced
referenced the
the deed
deed inin several
several filings
filings without
without challenging
challenging Appellee’s
Appellee's
ownership ownership status.
status. Rather,
Rather, Appellant
Appellant asserts
asserts his
his own
own claim.
claim. Based
Based on
on the
the
evidence evidence from
from the
the deed
deed and
and the
the parties’
parties' admissions,
admissions, there
there isis no
no dispute
dispute
regarding regarding Appellee’s
Appellee's ownership
ownership of
of the
the Subject
Subject Property
Property and,
and, consequently,
consequently,
his his right
right toto possession.
possession.
Appellant’s Appellant's contention
contention regarding regarding adequacy
adequacy of
of consideration
consideration isis
immaterial immaterial under
under established
established law,
law, which
which does
does not
not scrutinize
scrutinize the
the amount
amount but
but
rather rather requires
requires some
some form
form of
of consideration.
consideration. The
The deed
deed reflects
reflects consideration
consideration
of of $159,000.00
$159,000.00 tendered
tendered toto the
the seller
seller by
by Appellee,
Appellee, confirming
confirming its
its adequacy.
adequacy.
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
b.b. Whether
Whether Plaintiff
Plaintiff (“Appellee”)
("Appellee") asserts
asserts Defendant’s
Defendant's
(“Appellant’s”) ("Appellant's") wrongful
wrongful possession?
possession?
Appellant Appellant initially
initially contends
contends that
that his
his possession
possession ofof the
the Subject
Subject Property
Property
isis not
not wrongful,
wrongful, while
while acknowledging
acknowledging exclusive
exclusive possession
possession under
under the
the PFA
PFA
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
Orders, Orders, stating
stating “[t]he
"[t]he PFA
PFA speaks
speaks for
for itself’
itself' (citation
(citation omitted).
omitted). He
He attempts
attempts toto
substantiate substantiate his
his ownership
ownership claims
claims through
through his
his property
property improvements
improvements and
and
tax tax payments
payments toto establish
establish aa constructive constructive contract
contract between
between Appellee
Appellee and
and him.
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 10 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
He He asserts generally, that asserts generally, that “[o]ver "[o]ver the
the course of his
course of his twenty-one-year twenty-one-year
relationship relationship with
with [Appellee],
[Appellee], [Appellant]
[Appellant] paid over $40,000.00 paid over $40,000.00 to
to cover
cover
household household debts
debts and
and support
support the
the property.”
property." Brief by Deft.
Brief by Deft. In
In Opposition
Opposition of
of
Pitf.’s PItf.'s Motion
Motion for
for Judgment
Judgment on
on the
the Pleadings
Pleadings 02/03/2022, p. 1.
02/03/2022, p. 1. However, However,
these these assertions,
assertions, standing
standing alone,
alone, fail
fail to
to surmount
surmount the
the threshold
threshold for
for entry
entry of
of
judgment judgment on
on the
the pleadings,
pleadings, particularly
particularly when
when viewed
viewed within
within the
the broader
broader
context. context. This
This situation
situation isis analogous
analogous to
to one
one inin which
which aa lessee
lessee contributes
contributes to
to
maintenance maintenance costs
costs throughout
throughout his
his lease
lease term
term and
and subsequently
subsequently makes
makes an
an
unfounded unfounded claim
claim of
of ownership
ownership over
over the
the property,
property, where
where no
no such
such entitlement
entitlement
was was originally
originally bargained
bargained for.
for.
ItIt isis established
established that
that Appellee
Appellee alone
alone holds
holds fee
fee simple
simple ownership
ownership of
of the
the
Subject Subject Property
Property (see
(see above).
above). Both
Both parties
parties acknowledge
acknowledge residency
residency atat the
the
Subject Subject Property
Property from
from October
October 2014
2014 until
until the
the issuance
issuance of
of two
two PFA
PFA Orders
Orders on
on
September September 22,
22, 2021,
2021, which
which expired
expired February
February 20,
20, 2022.
2022. Motion Motion toto Obtain
Obtain
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
Supersedeas 05/29/2024, J,r 11. Supersedeas 05/29/2024, 11. The The pleadings,
pleadings, including
including the
the Complaint,
Complaint,
Amended Amended Complaint,
Complaint, Answer
Answer with
with New
New Matter,
Matter, and
and subsequent
subsequent responses,
responses,
reference reference two
two cross-filed
cross-filed PFA
PFA Orders
Orders issued
issued on
on September
September 22,
22, 2021.
2021. The
The
Orders Orders ousted
ousted Appellee
Appellee from
from the
the property
property and
and granted
granted exclusive
exclusive possession
possession
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
toto Appellant
Appellant until
until he
he vacated,
vacated, which
which had
had not
not occurred
occurred atat this
this action’s
action's
inception, inception, but
but which
which also
also extended
extended beyond
beyond the
the expiration
expiration ofof both
both PFA
PFA Orders.
Orders.
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 11 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
One One PFA
PFA Order
Order explicitly
explicitly states,
states, “[Appellee
"[Appellee is]
is] excluded from the
excluded from the residence residence
at at 394
394 Rutgers
Rutgers Court,
Court, Bensalem,
Bensalem, PA
PA 19020,”
19020," and, “[Appellant] is and, "[Appellant] is granted granted
exclusive exclusive possession
possession of
of the
the residence.
residence. [Appellee] shall have [Appellee] shall have no
no right
right or
or
privilege privilege to
to enter
enter or
or be
be present
present on
on the
the premises.” JJP PFA
premises." JJP PFA Order
Order 09/22/21,
09/22/21,
p.p. 2-3.
2-3. ItIt isis overtly
overtly stated
stated inin the
the orders,
orders, “[t]his
"[t]his provision
provision isis vacated
vacated upon
upon the
the
[Appellant's] [Appellant's] vacating
vacating of
of the
the residence,”
residence," and
and that
that “[t]his
"[t]his PFA
PFA isis not
not aa stay
stay for
for
any any civil
civil eviction
eviction proceedings.”
proceedings." Id.
Id.
Appellee Appellee commenced
commenced this
this action
action for
for ejectment
ejectment of
of Appellant
Appellant on
on October
October
5,5, 2021,
2021, with
with the
the PFA
PFA Orders
Orders expired
expired as
as of
of February
February 20,
20, 2022.
2022. Once Once
Appellant's Appellant's PFA
PFA Order
Order expired
expired against
against Appellee,
Appellee, itit no
no longer
longer provided
provided any
any
legal legal basis
basis to
to give
give Appellant
Appellant exclusive
exclusive possession
possession of
of the
the Subject
Subject Property.
Property.
Therefore, Therefore, Appellee
Appellee was
was free
free to
to assert
assert his
his ejectment
ejectment claim
claim after
after that
that PFA
PFA
expired. expired.
Appellant Appellant seeks
seeks damages
damages from
from Appellee
Appellee for
for funds
funds expended,
expended, but
but such
such
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
claims claims must
must be
be ascertainable
ascertainable or
or plausible
plausible to
to be
be credible.
credible. While
While not
not binding,
binding,
Courts Courts inin other
other states
states have
have persuasively
persuasively found
found that
that “damages
"damages are
are
speculative speculative when
when the
the probability
probability that
that aa circumstance
circumstance as
as an
an element
element ofof
compensation compensation isis conjectural.
conjectural. The
The rule
rule against
against recovery
recovery of
of ‘speculative
'speculative
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
damages’ damages' isis generally
generally directed
directed against
against uncertainty
uncertainty as
as toto cause
cause rather
rather than
than
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 12 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
uncertainty as uncertainty as to
to measure
measure or
or extent.”
extent." Sherrod v. Berry, Sherrod v. Berry, 629
629 F.
F. Supp.
Supp. 159
159
(N.D. (N.D. Ill.
I I. 1985);
1985); Crichfield
Crichfield v.v. Julia,
Julia. 147
147 F.F. 65,
65, 70-71 (2d Cir.
70-71 (2d Cir. 1906).
1906).
Appellant's Appellant's request
request for
for damages
damages appears
appears uncertain both in uncertain both in extent
extent and
and
cause, cause, particularly
particularly given
given the
the parties’
parties' seven
seven (7) year cohabitation, (7) year when cohabitation, when
compared compared to
to his
his claimed
claimed expenditures
expenditures spanning
spanning over
over two
two decades. Holding
decades. Holding
Appellee Appellee liable
liable for
for all
all payments
payments made
made by
by Appellant
Appellant over
over aa twenty
twenty (20)
(20) year
year
period period would
would result
result inin aa form
form of
of unjust
unjust enrichment
enrichment conferring
conferring an
an undue
undue
benefit benefit upon
upon Appellant.
Appellant. The
The issue
issue of
of these
these damages
damages isis not
not merely
merely contested
contested
or or uncertain
uncertain inin terms
terms of
of measure.
measure. Rather,
Rather, itit isis implausible implausible or
or not
not credible
credible as
as
to to whether
whether Appellant's
Appellant's claimed
claimed damages
damages of
of $40,000.00
$40,000.00 related
related to
to the
the Subject
Subject
Property Property and
and for
for what
what purpose.
purpose.
While While Appellant's
Appellant's potential
potential for
for recovery
recovery of
of substantiated
substantiated expenses
expenses
incurred incurred inin maintaining maintaining and
and improving
improving the
the subject
subject property
property inin the
the future
future isis not
not
precluded, precluded, his
his current
current assertions
assertions lack
lack the
the detail
detail necessary
necessary toto proceed
proceed
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
beyond beyond dismissal
dismissal by
by judgment
judgment on
on the
the pleadings.
pleadings.
c.c. Whether
Whether the
the prayer
prayer for
for relief
relief and
and claim
claim adhere
adhere to
to
legal legal standards?
standards?
Pursuant Pursuant toto 237
231 Pa.
Pa. Rule
Rule 3160,
3160, judgement:
judgement: execution
execution permits,
permits, aa
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
plaintiff plaintiff may
may seek
seek “execution
"execution for
for such
such rents,
rents, profits
profits or
or damages
damages shall
shall be
be inin
accordance accordance with
with the
the rules
rules governing
governing the
the enforcement
enforcement of
of judgments
judgments for
for the
the
payment payment ofof money”
money" after
after eviction.
eviction.
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 13 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
Appellee Appellee filed
filed aa petition
petition which
which includes
includes aa prayer
prayer for
for relief
relief under
under the
the
requirements requirements for
for ejectment,
ejectment, seeking
seeking ejectment
ejectment itself, reimbursement for itself, reimbursement for legal legal
costs, costs, financial
financial compensation
compensation due
due to
to lack
lack of
of possession, reimbursement of possession, reimbursement of
the the mortgage
mortgage payments,
payments, utilities,
utilities, and
and taxes
taxes incurred during Appellant's incurred during time Appellant's time
of of exclusive
exclusive possession,
possession, and
and any
any other
other just
just and
and equitable
equitable relief.
relief. Appellant
Appellant
has has not
not substantively
substantively addressed
addressed these
these prayers
prayers for
for relief
relief beyond
beyond contesting
contesting
their their validity.
validity.
Appellee Appellee has
has demonstrated
demonstrated that
that Appellant
Appellant occupies
occupies the
the Subject
Subject
Property Property without
without any
any established
established rental
rental agreement,
agreement, lease,
lease, or
or legal
legal title.
title.
Conspicuously, Conspicuously, Appellant
Appellant has
has not
not claimed
claimed any
any contribution
contribution toward
toward the
the
property’s property's purchase.
purchase. Based
Based solely
solely on
on the
the pleadings,
pleadings, Appellee
Appellee has
has sufficiently
sufficiently
demonstrated demonstrated grounds
grounds for
for Appellant's
Appellant's ejectment.
ejectment.
2.2. The
The court
court erred
erred by
by granting
granting Judgment
Judgment onon the
the Pleadings
Pleadings
inin favor
favor of
of the
the Plaintiff
Plaintiff (“Appellee”)
("Appellee") and
and against
against the the
Defendant Defendant (“Appellant”)
("Appellant") despite
despite the
the fact
fact that
that the the
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
Defendant Defendant (“Appellant”)
("Appellant") hashas not
not admitted
admitted facts
facts inin their
their
pleadings pleadings whichwhich could could be be considered
considered against
against the the
Defendant Defendant (“Appellant,”)
("Appellant,") by by the
the court
court atat this
this time.
time.
Furthermore, Furthermore, there
there are
are disputed
disputed issues
issues of
of fact
fact which
which
could could bebe considered
considered by
by aa Judge
Judge or
or Jury
Jury and
and which
which could
could
further further be
be developed
developed through
through proper
proper discovery.
discovery.
Appellant's Appellant's statement
statement lacks
lacks specificity
specificity regarding
regarding which
which facts
facts he
he
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
contends contends Appellee
Appellee has
has not
not admitted
admitted inin their
their pleadings
pleadings that
that could
could be
be
considered considered against
against him
him by
by the
the court.
court. Appellant’s
Appellant's ambiguity
ambiguity inin this
this regard
regard
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 14 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
prevents prevents the
the court
court from
from identifying
identifying the
the disputed issues of
disputed issues of fact
fact relevant
relevant to
to
judicial judicial oror jury
jury consideration.
consideration.
Assuming, Assuming, arguendo,
arguendo, Appellant
Appellant argues
argues his financial contributions his financial contributions as as
proof proof of
of ownership
ownership require
require jury
jury deliberation,
deliberation, the
the temporal scope and
temporal scope and purpose purpose
of of these
these contributions
contributions remain
remain unclear.
unclear. Whether
Whether spanning
spanning twenty-one
twenty-one (21)
(21)
years years or
or solely
solely seven
seven (7)
(7) years
years of
of residency,
residency, Appellant’s
Appellant's lack
lack of
of clarity
clarity and
and
specificity specificity diminishes
diminishes their
their relevance
relevance to
to the
the current
current ejectment.
ejectment. Such
Such claims
claims
may may be
be more
more appropriately
appropriately addressed
addressed inin aa separate separate legal
legal action
action by
by
Appellant, Appellant, especially
especially since
since his
his Answer
Answer and
and New
New Matter
Matter do
do not
not assert
assert claims
claims
for for damages
damages that
that could
could be
be substantiated
substantiated without
without aa contract
contract or
or clearly
clearly
articulated articulated legal
legal basis.
basis.
While While damages
damages typically
typically fall
fall within
within the
the jury’s
jury's purview,
purview, the
the absence
absence of
of
preliminary preliminary substantiation substantiation by
by Appellant
Appellant regarding
regarding expenditures
expenditures on
on the
the
Subject Subject Property
Property precludes
precludes consideration
consideration of
of such
such claims
claims atat this
this stage.
stage.
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
Appellant Appellant broadly
broadly asserts
asserts expenditures
expenditures totaling totaling $40,000.00
$40,000.00 over
over
approximately approximately twenty-one
twenty-one (21)
(21) years
years without
without specifying
specifying whether
whether these
these funds
funds
were were (1)
(1) directed
directed towards
towards the
the Subject
Subject Property;
Property; or
or (2)
(2) towards
towards previous
previous
residences residences jointly
jointly occupied
occupied by
by the
the parties
parties preceding
preceding the
the Subject
Subject Property’s
Property's
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
acquisition; acquisition; or
or (3)
(3) ifif he
he received
received any
any reciprocal
reciprocal compensation;
compensation; or
or (4)
(4) any
any
relevant details. relevant details.
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 15 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
essence, Appellant
InIn essence, claims expenses Appellant claims throughout his incurred throughout
expenses incurred his
with Appellee
relationship with relationship as aa defense Appellee as against ejectment.
defense against However, these ejectment. However, these
financial contributions
alleged financial alleged not aligned are not
contributions are with the aligned with damages redressable the damages redressable
current proceedings
the current
inin the lack support and lack
proceedings and or plausibility support or the pleadings.
plausibility inin the pleadings.
Since inception of
the inception
Since the PFA actions, the PFA of the has been Appellant has
actions, Appellant aware ofof been aware
intent toto seek
Appellee's intent Appellee’s exclusive possession seek exclusive as explicitly possession as provided for explicitly provided for
therein instructing, “[t]he when instructing,
therein when the PFA entry ofof the
"[the entry NOT aa stay PFA isis NOT any civil on any
stay on civil
eviction proceedings.” eviction JFM PFA proceedings." JFM Order 09/22/21, PFA Order Appellant's continued 09/22/21, p.p. 4.4. Appellant's continued
the Subject
occupation ofof the occupation owned solely Property owned
Subject Property by Appellee solely by after the Appellee after the
the PFA
expiration ofof the expiration without either Orders, without
PFA Orders, attempting toto resolve either attempting the matter, resolve the matter,
legally contest or legally or Appellee's title, contest Appellee’s support Appellee’s title, support claim inin ejectment.
Appellee's claim ejectment.
Despite Appellee’s Despite ample notice Appellee's ample him toto vacate, notice toto him Appellant continues vacate, Appellant continues
toto occupy
occupy the
the property
property without
without asserting
asserting aa legal
legal claim
claim toto ownership
ownership that
that could
could
prevent prevent his
his ejectment.
ejectment. Appellant's Appellant's claim
claim that
that ejectment
ejectment would
would cause
cause
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
hardship hardship does
does not
not justify
justify his
his prolonged
prolonged wrongful
wrongful possession.
possession. Appellant
Appellant was
was
aware aware ofof Appellee’s
Appellee's intent
intent toto pursue
pursue ejectment,
ejectment, as
as communicated
communicated through
through
the the PFA
PFA Orders
Orders that
that legally
legally “excluded
"excluded [Appellee]
[Appellee] from
from the
the residence
residence atat 394
394
Rutgers Rutgers Court.”
Court." The
The hardships
hardships claimed
claimed byby Appellant,
Appellant, which
which he
he claims
claims will
will
documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
arise arise from
from potential
potential ejectment
ejectment and
and poor
poor health,
health, neither
neither constitute
constitute aa sudden
sudden
occurrence occurrence nor
nor justify
justify delaying
delaying this
this legal
legal action
action without
without aa valid
valid defense.
defense.
2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 16 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and
Appellant neither contested has neither
Appellant has validity of the validity
contested the Appellee's title of Appellee’s nor presented title nor presented
evidence that
any evidence any support his would support
that would continued occupancy.
his continued Considering the occupancy. Considering the
there are
pleadings, there pleadings, disputed issues no disputed
are no suitable for issues suitable jury consideration for jury consideration
regarding damages, regarding ownership claims, damages, ownership or other claims, or legal defenses.
other legal defenses.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
conclusion, the
InIn conclusion, trial court’s the trial was rendered Order was
court's Order following aa rendered following
comprehensive examination comprehensive the pleadings examination ofof the and the pleadings and corresponding record.
the corresponding record.
Appellant has Appellant failed toto establish has failed any substantive establish any grounds warranting substantive grounds warranting
reversal. reversal. Appellant's appeal Therefore, Appellant’s Therefore, be denied, should be
appeal should the trial and the
denied, and trial
order affirmed.
court's order court’s affirmed.
THE COURT, BY THE BY COURT,
Date: 7/sh o» uff 6f:24 ntl MATT WEINTRAUB, J.
DLA
dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias
your resp
N.B. ItIt isis your N.B. onsibility responsibility
parties ang
The panes gare attorneys de theirauch
and ha
notify allall intere
toto notify sted partie interested s
parties are directed to refer to and abide by Judge Weintrau Standard Operating Standard
b'eProcedures
above action .
Weintraub's Operating the above
ofof the action. at:
https://www.buckscounty.gov/2027/ https://w ww.buckscounty.gow/2027/ D-Weintraub
Matthew-D-Weintraub Matthewdocuments
. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler
McSorley, J. v. Paul, J. (McSorley, J. v. Paul, J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.