From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Inv'rs Commercial Capital LLC v. Unknown Heirs of Kopacz

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 15, 2016
J-A12017-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 15, 2016)

Opinion

J-A12017-16 Nos. 1565 EDA 2015 Nos. 1886 EDA 2015

09-15-2016

INVESTORS COMMERCIAL CAPITAL LLC, SERVICING AGENT FOR THE BANK Appellee v. UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, ETC. CLAIMING RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST FROM OR UNDER HENRY A. KOPACZ, DECEASED AS MORTGAGOR AND KOPACZ IRREVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, AS REAL OWNER Appellants INVESTORS COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC Appellant v. UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, SUCCESSORS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, ASSIGNS OF, AND ALL PERSONS, FIRMS, OR ASSOCIATIONS CLAIMING RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST FROM OR UNDER, HENRY A. KOPACZ, DECEASED, AND KOPACZ IRREVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, AS REAL OWNERS AND MORTGAGORS Appellees


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): May Term, 2012 No. 001837 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Etc. Claiming Right, Title or Interest from or under Henry A. Kopacz, Deceased as Mortgagor and Kopacz Irrevocable Family Trust, as Real Owner (the "Kopacz Appellants") and Investors Commercial Capital LLC, Servicing Agent for the Bank (the "ICC Appellants") cross-appeal from the judgment entered after a non-jury verdict granting foreclosure to the ICC Appellants on April 20, 2015. The Kopacz Appellants challenge the trial court factual and legal conclusions supporting the verdict in favor of the ICC Appellants. The ICC Appellants allege that the trial court erred in failing to include post-verdict interest in the March 4, 2015 verdict. We affirm.

These appeals have been consolidated. The parties purport to appeal from the verdict entered on March 4, 2015, the denial of post-trial motions on April 16, 2015, and the entry of judgment entered on April 20, 2016. See Notices of Appeal, 6/4/15 and 7/1/15. This is simply incorrect. "Orders denying post-trial motions ... are not appealable. Rather, it is the subsequent judgment that is the appealable order when a trial has occurred." Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlin Ltd., 901 A.2d 523, 525 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted). Here, judgment was entered by praecipe on April 20, 2015. Despite their errors, this Court will address the appeals because judgment has been entered on the verdict. See Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Division , 781 A.2d 1263, 1266 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2001). We have corrected the caption accordingly. --------

The trial court accurately summarized the history of this case. See Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated 3/4/15, at 1-29. Therefore, a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary. We review a verdict following a non-jury trial as follows.

Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error in any application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial judge must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury. We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. We will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence in the record or if its findings are premised on an error of law. However, where the issue ... concerns a question of law, our scope of review is plenary.
Stephan v. Waldron Elec. Heating and Cooling , LLC , 100 A.3d 660, 664 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and brackets omitted). Further, it is well-established that the fact-finder is free to accept or reject the testimony of both expert and lay witnesses, and to believe all, part of none of the evidence. See Terwilliger v. Kitchen , 781 A.2d 1201, 1210 (Pa. Super. 2001).

On appeal, the Kopacz Appellants have consolidated the 14 issues raised in their Rule 1925(b) statement into six claims of error. The ICC Appellants have raised one issue on appeal. The trial court, in its September 22, 2015 opinion, as well as its March 4, 2015 findings of fact and conclusions of law, has aptly reviewed both parties' claims and disposed of all arguments on the merits. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well-written opinion of the Honorable John M. Younge. We have determined that the trial court's opinion, as well as its findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the March 4, 2015 verdict, comprehensively disposes of both the Kopacz Appellants and ICC Appellants issues on appeal, with appropriate references to the record and without legal error. Therefore, we will affirm based on those decisions. See Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated 3/4/15; Trial Court Opinion, dated 9/22/15.

Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/15/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Inv'rs Commercial Capital LLC v. Unknown Heirs of Kopacz

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 15, 2016
J-A12017-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 15, 2016)
Case details for

Inv'rs Commercial Capital LLC v. Unknown Heirs of Kopacz

Case Details

Full title:INVESTORS COMMERCIAL CAPITAL LLC, SERVICING AGENT FOR THE BANK Appellee v…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 15, 2016

Citations

J-A12017-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 15, 2016)