Opinion
J-S29033-17 No. 2872 EDA 2016
05-26-2017
RAYMOND JOSEPH SMOLSKY Appellant v. DAWN E. GALE
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered August 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Civil Division at No(s): 2013-05846 BEFORE: LAZARUS, SOLANO, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. --------
Raymond Joseph Smolsky ("Appellant"), appeals from the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County granting Dawn Gale's ("Appellee") motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant's civil complaint. We affirm.
The trial court aptly summarizes the procedural and factual history of the case as follows:
On July 31, 2013, Appellant filed a Complaint against Appellee for violating Appellant's "inherent rights of mankind" under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution[,] . . . for actions arising out of the care of Appellant's now-deceased father, who suffered from dementia. Complaint 07/31/13, ¶¶ 1[, 9-12, 14,] 19; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ¶ 8. Though no oral testimony occurred, Appellant averred the following in his Complaint and his Answer to Appellee's New
matter: (1) while Appellant cared for Appellant's father, she screened his calls out of jealousy of their father-son relationship; (2) Appellee refused to allow a neighbor, with Appellant's Power fo Attorney, into Appellant's father's home; (3) Appellee instructed the hospice nurses to not answer calls from the Appellant' (4) Appellee treated Appellant's father poorly out of spite; (5) Appellee ignored Appellant's phone calls because Appellee was engaging in an extramarital affair with one of the hospice nurses in the home; and (6) Appellee fraudulently claimed Appellant has been calling her residence, not Appellant's father's residence. Complaint 7/13/13, ¶¶ 9-12, 14-18.
Appellee averred that due to the Appellants' now deceased father's dementia, speaking with his son on the telephone upset him because he did not understand [with] who[m] he was speaking []. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ¶ 8; Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint Together with New Matter 2/7/14, ¶ 12-13. Appellee averred Appellant has not resided in the home he claims as his domicile, in the twenty-five (25) years due to incarceration.1 Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint Together with New Matter. 2/7/14, ¶ 6.
1 Appellant was sentenced to a twenty-two-and-a-half (22.5) to forty-five (45) year sentence for corruption of minors, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and rape.
***
To provide more context of what [Plaintiff/]Appellant is actually claiming, [the trial court] includes the "Summary of Claims" outlined by Appellee in his Complaint:
The Plaintiff avers that the Plaintiff's most-cherished inherent rights of mankind Article I. [sic] Section 1. [sic] By the Constitutioan of the Commonwatlh of Pennsylvania, is [sic] being [sic] violated and Plaintiff's most-cherished of [sic] loving rights of his Father-Son sharing of [sic] their enjoyments of natural senior-years of life and happiness together, is [sic] wantonly and recklessly purposefully being interfered with by the Defendant in order to deprive the Plaintiff these human rights and cause ot the Plaintiff extreme anxieties, harms, annoyance, harassment and alarm, by the Defendant's fraud,
envy, lust and greed, through, among other things, hatred of this relationship, to sabotage it and to come between Father and Son's last-years [sic] together on earth [sic] for Defendant's personal greater freedoms and gain, without legal authority to do so, to deprive to [sic] the Plaintiff these all important and most-cherished human immediate [sic] family and other rights by committing these acts complained about herein, as pled, that warrant relief.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/14/16, at 1-2.
***
On August 28, 2013, the [trial court] approved Appellant's in forma pauperis application. The Sheriff's Office received a request for service from Appellant on January 8, 2014, and served Appellee on January 13, 2014. On February 7, 2014, Appellee filed an Answer to Appellant's Complaint along with a New Matter. Appellant filed an answer to Appellee's New Matter on March 13, 2014. Appellee moved for a Judgment on the Pleadings on May 6, 2014.
On May 27, 2014, Appellant filed an Answer to Appellee's Judgment on the Pleadings in conjunction with a Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellee answered Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment on June 26, 2016, and Appellant praecipied the issue. [The trial court] denied Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment on May 27, 2015. Appellee then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 23, 2016, which the Court granted on August 16, 2016, after it was praecipied. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to Superior Court on November 9, 2016.
In Appellant's court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, he made the following assertions:
1. The lower court deprived to the Plaintiff due process under law and access to the court by mischaracterizing the Complaint facts. Secured under Article I, [sic] Section II [sic] Courts to be Open [sic] to hear all claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Where "the record" explicitly reflects genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
2. Thereby abusing it's [sic] discretion, erring as a matter of law, showed bias or ill-will with prejudice towards the Plaintiff, while showing favoritism to the Defendant, and granting summary judgement [sic] to the Defendant in conflict with the Complaint [sic] well pled record facts that also sought "liberal construction" as a pro se litigant besides monetary relief.Appellant's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, 10/20/16. In response, the trial court authored a Rule 1925(a) opinion in which it denies mischaracterizing the Complaint facts and rejects the Complaint's assertion that Article I, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution supports a cause of action against private individuals. Trial Court Opinion, at 6. In the alternative, the court indicated it would deny Appellant's claim because "money damages are inappropriate for violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution such as this." Id. (citing Jones v. City of Philadelphia , 890 A.2d 1188, 1208 (Pa. Commw. 2006).
Our standard of review of an order granting a motion for summary judgment is well-settled:
We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered. Our scope of review of a trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court's order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.Daley v. A.W. Chesterton , Inc., 37 A.3d 1175, 1179 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).
In Appellant's pro se brief, he maintains that the court erroneously granted summary judgment based on its mischaracterization of the facts pled and apparent misapprehension of the causes of action maintained in his complaint. Our review of his complaint, however, belies his charge, as the complaint invokes the court's jurisdiction over matters involving "inherent rights of mankind under Section 1 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania[,]" and it states one claim, under its section entitled "Summary of Claims," asserting that Appellee violated Appellant's "most-cherished inherent rights of mankind Article I. Section 1. by the Constitution of the Commonweatlh of Pennsylvania[.]" Appellants' Complaint at 1, 5. We, therefore, reject the predicate to Appellant's assertion on appeal.
In that vein, after careful review of the record, party briefs, and the trial court's Rule 1925(a) opinion, we discern no error with the trial courts' reliance on decisional law recognizing no cause of action for money damages under Article I, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, we adopt the rationale of the trial court in deciding this matter.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/26/2017
Image materials not available for display.