Antell, C. v. First Niagara Bank, N.A.
2273 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Sep 30, 2016Background
- Antell obtained a mortgage in 2006; servicer First Niagara later handled the loan after acquisition and Freddie Mac became the loan owner.
- Antell stopped payments in 2012 alleging First Niagara refused to disclose the loan owner and that legal fees added to his account were unsupported.
- Antell previously sued in federal court; that complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and futility.
- In state court Antell (pro se) sued First Niagara for intentional misrepresentation (fraud), violation of the UTPCPL, tortious interference, and sought quiet title relief.
- First Niagara filed preliminary objections (demurrer) arguing gist-of-the-action barred the tort claims, fraud was not pled with particularity, damages were not alleged, tortious interference lacked a third‑party target, and the quiet title count failed to conform to Rule 1061.
- The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was improper and leave to amend required | Antell argued the court must allow amendment when claims might be cured and counsel could draft viable claims | First Niagara argued the pleadings were incurably deficient; Antell failed to amend within the Rule 1028 period and sought no leave | Court held dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because claims were legally deficient on their face, Antell did not seek timely amendment, and successive amendment was not warranted |
| Whether tort claims (UTPCPL, misrepresentation, interference) survive gist-of-the-action | Antell contended the acts were torts (deceptive practices, misrepresentations, interference) independent of contract | First Niagara argued the allegations arise solely from contractual/servicing duties and therefore are barred by the gist-of-the-action doctrine | Court held the alleged misconduct flowed from the mortgage/servicing relationship and were barred by gist-of-the-action |
| Whether fraud/intentional misrepresentation was pled with requisite particularity and showed damages | Antell claimed misrepresentations about loan ownership and fees induced him to act and caused harm | First Niagara argued Antell failed to plead specific facts (who, when, where, how), failed to allege intent/withholding, and alleged no actual injury | Court held fraud was not pled with particularity and no actual injury was alleged, so the claim failed |
| Whether quiet title claim complied with Rule 1061 | Antell sought to compel disclosure/cancellation related to loan ownership and fees | First Niagara argued Antell acknowledged existence/validity of the mortgage and did not allege a competing interest or title defect as required for quiet title relief | Court held quiet title claim failed to meet Rule 1061 requirements because no adverse title claim or dispute over the mortgage’s validity was alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Kramer v. Dunn, 749 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard of review for sustaining preliminary objections)
- Gibbs v. Ernst, 647 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1994) (elements required for fraud/intentional misrepresentation)
- Presbyterian Med. Ctr. v. Budd, 832 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Super. 2003) (fraud must be pled with particularity to avoid unfounded allegations)
- Behrend v. Yellow Cab Co., 271 A.2d 241 (Pa. 1970) (courts need not permit successive amendments when initial pleading shows claim cannot be established)
- Bata v. Central-Penn National Bank, 224 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1966) (liberal allowance of amendments where reasonable possibility of cure exists)
- Krajsa v. Keypunch, Inc., 622 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 1993) (purpose of Rule 1019: inform opposing party of claims by stating essential facts)
- Empire Trucking Co. v. Reading Anthracite Coal Co., 71 A.3d 923 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements of tortious interference with contractual relations)
- Walnut St. Assoc., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 982 A.2d 94 (Pa. Super. 2009) (distinguishing contract duties from duties imposed by law for gist-of-the-action analysis)
- Phillips v. Selig, 959 A.2d 420 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements and requirement of actual damage for interference claims)
- Nat'l Christian Conference Ctr. v. Schuylkill Tp., 597 A.2d 248 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (purpose and scope of quiet title actions)