From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

JP Morgan Chase Bank Na v. Palumbo

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 14, 2016
No. 2887 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 14, 2016)

Opinion

J-S52044-16 No. 2887 EDA 2015

09-14-2016

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, Appellee v. GREGORY PALUMBO AND LISA PALUMBO, Appellants


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 28, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Civil Division at No(s): 2012-001389 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

Gregory and Lisa Palumbo (the Palumbos, collectively) appeal from the August 28, 2014 order that granted summary judgment against them and on behalf of Appellee JP Morgan Chase Bank NA (JP Morgan). Also before us are motions to strike portions of the Palumbos' reproduced record and to file an amended brief filed by JP Morgan, as well as two motions to amend filed by the Palumbos. We deny all four motions and affirm the judgment.

JP Morgan filed a mortgage foreclosure action against the Palumbos in 2012. The case was consolidated with a quiet title and conversion action filed by the Palumbos. JP Morgan moved for summary judgment in 2015 in the foreclosure action; by order of August 28, 2015, the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment. The trial court then unconsolidated the actions. This timely-filed appeal followed. Both the Palumbos and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Addressing first the motions filed in this Court, it is axiomatic that this Court will not consider documents that are not included in the certified record. See , e.g., Roth Cash Register Co. v. Micro Sys., Inc., 868 A.2d 1222, 1223 (Pa. 2005) ("[T]his Court will only consider documents which are part of the certified record."). Accordingly, JP Morgan's motion to strike non-record documents the Palumbos included in their reproduced record is denied as moot. Also, as our consideration of Appellee's arguments has not been hampered by the absence of citations to a reproduced record, we deny JP Morgan's motion to file a new, definitive brief. Further, this Court has overlooked the grammatical and typographical errors in the Palumbos' reply brief; thus, their motions to file an amended reply brief to address those stylistic errors are also denied as moot.

Turning to the substance of the appeal, the Palumbos state ten verbose and repetitious questions for this Court's review. See Palumbos' Brief at 9-11. The questions boil down to the following issues: (1) whether it was error to hold that JP Morgan was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (2) whether JP Morgan has standing as the real party in interest to pursue foreclosure; (3) whether JP Morgan's complaint is verified properly; (4) whether the Palumbos were denied a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery; and (5) whether the proper notice was given by JP Morgan prior to pursuing its complaint.

We note with displeasure that the argument portion of the Palumbos' brief is not divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued, with corresponding headings, as is required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Because it would take more effort than it is worth to pour through the brief to determine whether each of the ten issues raised actually is supported by independent argument, reference to the record, and citation to authority, we decline to consider waiver.

"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." Hovis v. Sunoco , Inc., 64 A.3d 1078, 1081 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Cassel-Hess v. Hoffer , 44 A.3d 80, 84-85 (Pa. Super. 2012)).

Following a thorough review of the certified record, the briefs for the parties, and the relevant law, we conclude that the opinion of the Honorable Spiros E. Angelos thoroughly addresses Appellant's issues and arguments and applies the correct law to findings of fact that are supported by the record. Therefore, we adopt the trial court's opinion dated November 24, 2015, as our own and hold, based upon the reasons stated therein, that the trial court committed neither an error of law nor an abuse of discretion in granting JP Morgan's motion for summary judgment. The parties shall attach a copy of the trial court's opinion dated November 24, 2015, to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings.

The opinion was filed on December 1, 2015.

We add that, with the last question stated in their brief, the Palumbos question why the trial court in its opinion addressed whether JP Morgan had supplied the requisite notice to pursue a foreclosure action against them when that issue was not raised in their statement of errors complained of on appeal filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Palumbos' Brief at 11. The easy answer to that question is that the Palumbos, although they have abandoned any notice-related claim in their brief to this Court, did claim in their 1925(b) statement that JP Morgan failed to provide a "notice required prior to filing." Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 10/20/2015, at ¶ II. Accordingly, the trial court addressed that claim of error in its opinion. We fail to see why the Palumbos raise it as a question in their brief, as they do not even attempt to argue that the issue warrants some form of relief from this Court.

Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/14/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

JP Morgan Chase Bank Na v. Palumbo

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 14, 2016
No. 2887 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 14, 2016)
Case details for

JP Morgan Chase Bank Na v. Palumbo

Case Details

Full title:JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, Appellee v. GREGORY PALUMBO AND LISA PALUMBO…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 14, 2016

Citations

No. 2887 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 14, 2016)