Opinion
J-A08012-19 No. 862 WDA 2018
10-09-2019
BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY D/B/A BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PAMELA A. VUKMAN Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered February 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): GD-06-024554 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:
Appellant, Pamela A. Vukman, was the owner of residential property located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. However, because of allegations that she had not paid the note and mortgage which she executed on September 14, 2001, a foreclosure action was filed against her in October 2006.
Instead of proceeding at a scheduled trial on May 6, 2009, Vukman, represented by counsel, entered into a consent judgment. Although Vukman agreed that a judgment be entered against her in the amount of $17,508.81, with continuing interest, the agreement included additional terms to assist Vukman in maintaining ownership of the property. The consent agreement provided that Appellee, Beneficial Consumer Discount Company, would not execute on the judgment unless Vukman violated the additional terms of the consent judgment, which included a repayment schedule. Unfortunately, Beneficial filed an affidavit of default in April 2010. By order of the trial court dated July 1, 2010, the sheriff's sale of the property was conducted on August 2, 2010.
Vukman challenged the adequacy of the Act 91 notice Beneficial sent her, and argued that this defect deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to grant foreclosure. The trial court agreed with Vukman and set aside the sheriff's sale. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed that order on September 25, 2013, holding that the defect in the Act 91 notice did not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court. See Beneficial Consumer Disc. Co. v. Vukman , 77 A.3d 547, 553 (Pa. 2013).
At the time, Act 91 required Beneficial to notify Vukman that she was delinquent and that she had thirty days to take steps to resolve the delinquency by restructuring the payment schedule or any other mutual agreement. See Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. Vukman , 77 A.3d 547, 550 (Pa. 2013).
Vukman has attempted to file several pro se petitions and motions in the trial court during the pendency of Vukman's previous appeal. The trial court appropriately deferred ruling on these filings because, as the trial court noted, it lacked jurisdiction while the appeal before the appellate courts. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701. On February 19, 2014, following the Supreme Court's decision in Vukman's previous appeal, the trial court entered an order confirming the sheriff's sale previously held in 2010 and denied all of the outstanding motions filed by Vukman.
Once again, Vukman appealed. The Superior Court affirmed the February 19, 2014 order. See Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. Vukman , 355 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super., filed April 6, 2015) (unpublished memorandum). A pro se petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on December 21, 2015.
Vukman continued to make pro se filings in the trial court while her petition for allowance of appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. On February 29, 2016, the Honorable Michael E. McCarthy of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction of the case after the Supreme Court refused to review the trial court's confirmation of the sheriff's sale. The order included the following language:
AND NOW, this 29th day of February 2016, it is hereby Ordered that the "Motion to Deem Admitted and Rule Absolute" filed on behalf of Defendant, Pamela A. Vukman, is Denied.
It is further ordered that pursuant to this Court's Order of February 19, 2014, which has since been affirmed on appeal, this case is terminated.
The Department of Court Records shall not accept further filings by the parties under his case number.
Vukman subsequently filed the current appeal. Delays in the processing of this appeal were caused by Vukman's failure to pay the filing fees associated with this appeal. Eventually, an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925 was filed by the trial court on August 2, 2018. Briefs have been filed, and the matter is ready for disposition.
After an exhaustive review of the procedural history of this case, and a close study of the briefs filed by the parties, we find the opinion filed by Judge McCarthy to be a comprehensive and well-stated decision. Judge McCarthy clearly and correctly ruled that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction following the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of December 21, 2015, which denied review of the trial court's order confirming the earlier sheriff's sale. Therefore, based upon Judge McCarthy's well-written August 2, 2018 opinion, we dismiss this appeal. See Bottomer v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 859 A.2d 1282, 1285 (Pa. 2002) (holding that action that has been finalized through appellate review no longer represents a live controversy for courts to decide).
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/9/2019
Image materials not available for display.