George, H. v. Meltzer, P.
422 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- In 2002 Helen George obtained a $362,369 mortgage from Equity One that encumbered multiple parcels; a negotiated Partial Release removed Parcels A and B, leaving Parcel C subject to the mortgage.
- Chase (assignee) foreclosed on Parcel C; George lost at trial and on appeal she had multiple prior actions (quiet title, malpractice, UTPCPL, tax/foreclosure challenges) dismissed or quashed as previously adjudicated or procedurally defective.
- George repeatedly sued her former counsel Emerick, adjoining landowner Meltzer, purchaser Litzinger, and Litzinger’s law firm alleging UTPCPL violations, fraud, altered sheriff’s deed, perjury and related claims in an amended complaint filed August 2015.
- Defendants filed preliminary objections and motions to dismiss under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 (designed to bar repetitive pro se litigation raising same or related claims); the trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and barred further pro se suits on the same/related claims without leave of court.
- George sought to supplement the record on appeal with newly obtained documents; the Superior Court declined to consider documents not part of the certified trial record, found Rule 233.1 dismissal appropriate, and affirmed the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 to dismiss this suit | George argued her submitted prima facie evidence of fraud and altered deed required adjudication, not dismissal under Rule 233.1 | Defendants argued the claims are the same or related to prior adjudicated actions and Rule 233.1 permits dismissal and pre-filing bar | Court held Rule 233.1 applied; dismissal with prejudice and pre-filing bar were appropriate |
| Admissibility of newly discovered evidence on appeal | George asked the Superior Court to consider documents she recently received and add them to the record | Defendants argued appellate review is limited to the certified trial court record | Court denied supplementation; only certified trial court record may be considered on appeal |
| Waiver of appeal for defective appellate brief | George claimed error in dismissal despite brief defects | Defendants urged dismissal of appeal for nonconforming, indecipherable brief | Court declined to dismiss appeal for briefing defects but considered the merits; nonetheless affirmed the dismissal |
| Service on Meltzer and participation | George claims Meltzer was a defendant and participated | Defendants noted Meltzer was not properly served under Pa.R.C.P. 402/403 and did not participate | Court observed Meltzer was not properly served and did not participate; dismissal proceeded as to those defendants who litigated the motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for Rule 233.1 dismissal is abuse of discretion)
- In re Fielder, 132 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (appellate court limited to facts in certified record)
- Possessky v. Diem, 655 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (parties cannot supplement the appellate record with documents not considered by the trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 317 A.2d 258 (Pa.) (appellate courts consider only facts certified in the record)