Melton, D. v. Statewide Abstract Group
1796 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 21, 2016Background
- Darlene Melton, purporting to act for the estate of her father Leonard Brooks, filed a 2011 action (quiet title/adverse possession) claiming property at 2919 W. Girard Ave belonged to her deceased grandmother, Mildred A. Brooks. Her letters of administration were revoked November 9, 2011 when it was discovered she was not sole heir.
- The 2011 action was dismissed with prejudice on March 15, 2012; Melton did not appeal. A lis pendens filed then was ordered removed. The Property was sold on May 25, 2012 and later conveyed to Solomon Pascal Property Management.
- In 2013 Melton filed a new action and lis pendens against the current owner and numerous parties involved in the sale (title company, closing agent, notary, sellers, and Mildred E. Brooks), again claiming the Property belonged to Mildred A. Brooks and alleging fraud in the 2012 sale.
- Appellees moved to dismiss and/or filed preliminary objections arguing Melton lacked standing (she was not personal representative), the suit repeated prior claims, and the lis pendens violated the earlier court order; Chicago Title also moved under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 to dismiss duplicative pro se claims.
- The trial court sustained preliminary objections, struck the lis pendens, and dismissed Melton’s amended complaint with prejudice. The Superior Court affirmed, holding Melton lacked standing to pursue the 2013 action because she was not the estate’s personal representative after revocation of her letters of administration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue on behalf of decedent’s estate | Melton claimed she had letters of administration (received July 2011) and thus could bring suit for the estate | Defendants argued Melton’s letters were revoked Nov. 9, 2011, so she lacked capacity as personal representative and thus lacked standing | Court held Melton lacked standing under 20 Pa.C.S. § 3311 because her letters were revoked and only a personal representative may pursue estate claims |
| Preclusion (res judicata / collateral estoppel / coordinate jurisdiction) | Melton attempted to relitigate same property ownership and fraud allegations | Defendants argued the 2011 dismissal with prejudice bars relitigation and prior rulings control under res judicata/collateral estoppel and coordinate jurisdiction | Court did not reach preclusion doctrines because dismissal on standing was dispositive, but trial court relied on those doctrines in its order; Superior Court affirmed on standing ground |
| Lis pendens filed after prior dismissal | Melton used lis pendens to prevent retransfer pending alleged criminal investigation | Defendants argued lis pendens violated prior court order removing lis pendens and was improper because Melton lacked standing | Court struck the lis pendens as part of dismissal; underlying standing defect made lis pendens improper |
| Request for stay pending criminal investigation / denial of oral argument | Melton sought a stay until criminal process resolved and requested oral argument | Defendants opposed; court denied stay and did not hold oral argument | Court denied stay and considered Melton’s procedural objections waived or inadequately briefed; dismissal affirmed based on lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson Coal Co. v. Goodall, 72 A.3d 685 (Pa. Super. 2013) (defines res judicata / claim preclusion elements)
- BuyFigure.com, Inc. v. Autotrader.com, Inc., 76 A.3d 554 (Pa. Super. 2013) (res judicata should not be avoided by minor changes in form or parties)
- Rue v. K‑Mart Corp., 713 A.2d 82 (Pa. 1998) (doctrine of collateral estoppel / issue preclusion explained)
- Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25 (Pa. 2003) (coordinate jurisdiction rule and its limited exceptions)
- Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2005) (standing is threshold requirement)
- Maier v. Henning, 578 A.2d 1279 (Pa. 1990) (strict compliance with Decedents, Estates and Fiduciaries Code is required)
- In re Kurkowski’s Estate, 409 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1979) (personal representative’s duty to preserve estate for distribution)
- In re Kilpatrick’s Estate, 84 A.2d 339 (Pa. 1951) (only personal representative can sue on behalf of an estate)
- Oudry‑Davis v. Findley, 64 Pa. Super. 92 (Pa. Super. 1916) (heirs lack standing to recover estate assets absent personal representative)
- Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appellate waiver for inadequately developed arguments)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (arguments not properly developed are waived)
- Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellant must support issues with reasoned discussion)