Gochin, D. v. Feldman, R.
Gochin, D. v. Feldman, R. No. 2822 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- Diane R. Gochin (appellant) sued attorney Randee Feldman (appellee) in 2011 alleging abuse of process, tortious interference, fraud, fraud upon the court, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; some claims were previously stricken.
- Feldman filed an Answer with New Matter and a counterclaim (including attorney-fee claims); pleadings and numerous motions followed over several years.
- The trial court granted several orders on June 23, 2015, including granting Feldman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entering default judgment in part on his counterclaim; Gochin appealed but the Superior Court quashed the appeal as nonfinal.
- Feldman later withdrew his counterclaim (January 28, 2016). Gochin moved (April 7, 2016) to strike or re-open various judgments/orders from June 23, 2015; the trial court denied those motions on August 4, 2016.
- Gochin appealed pro se from the August 4, 2016 order; the trial court directed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement and Gochin submitted a nine‑page narrative that the court deemed non‑compliant and essentially a nonstatement.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it held Gochin waived all appellate issues for failing to comply with Rule 1925(b) and found her appellate brief further defective (no statement of questions presented, jurisdiction, standard/scope of review, statement of the case, or developed argument), which independently precluded meaningful review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant preserved issues for appeal by filing a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement | Gochin’s 9‑page narrative identified errors and alleged court misconduct and conspiracy | Trial court: the submission was not a concise statement; it was too vague and functionally no statement at all | Waived — Rule 1925(b) noncompliance forfeited all issues on appeal |
| Whether the Superior Court could review despite waiver because of alleged trial-court improprieties | Gochin argued the court’s conduct was impeachable and included allegations from a federal complaint | Appellee/Trial court: procedural rules control; vague conspiracy claims insufficient | Even if not waived, appellant’s brief defects would preclude meaningful review; appeal affirmed |
| Whether the denial of motions to strike/re-open judgments was erroneous | Gochin sought re‑opening/striking of orders (judgment on pleadings, attempted joinder, default judgment entry) | Trial court: prior procedural rulings, pleadings status, and motions had been litigated; Gochin failed to properly raise issues | Court denied relief; Superior Court affirmed that denials stand (no reversible error identified) |
| Whether the appellant’s brief was adequate for appellate review | Gochin submitted a pro se brief lacking statement of questions presented, jurisdiction, standard/scope of review, statement of the case, and argument | Appellee relied on appellate rules requiring particularity and developed argument | Brief was insufficient; deficient brief would have led to dismissal or prevented meaningful review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 1925(b) statement must identify issues with sufficient detail)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (concise statement must properly specify errors to be reviewed)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (vague Rule 1925(b) statement is functional equivalent of none and causes waiver)
- Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 1996) (omission of questions presented and lack of organized arguments renders brief insufficient for review)
- Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1993) (statement of questions presented defines issues for appellate review)
- Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, AFL-CIO v. Philadelphia Daily News, Inc., 164 A.2d 215 (Pa. 1960) (legal principle regarding when pleadings are deemed closed)