Rock Christian Center v. Rodriguez, L. ( 2022 )

J-S31004-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ROCK CHRISTIAN CENTER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LUIS A. RODRIGUEZ, ANDRES :
ROLON, AND PRIMERA IGLESIA DE :
DIOS PENTE- COSTAL LA VINA DEL : No. 110 EDA 2021
SENIOR :
:
:
APPEAL OF: ANDRES ROLON :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered February 17, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No: No. 190100963
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JANUARY 18, 2022
Luis A. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), Andrew Rolon (“Rolon”), and Primera
Iglesia De Dios Pentecostal La Vina Del Senor (“PI”) (collectively “Appellants”)
appeal from the February 17, 2021 judgment entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County in favor of Appellee, Rock Christian Center
(“RCC”).1 Appellants contend the trial court erred in determining that RCC
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The caption in this case has been corrected to reflect that the appeal is from
the judgment entered in favor of Rock Christian Center on February 17, 2021,
rather than from an October 27, 2020 order entered in favor of Rock Christian
Church.
J-S31004-21
holds a valid deed to property known as 4931-35 N. 6th Street in Philadelphia
(“the Property”) and that a deed issued for the Property to Rolon is null and
void. Following review, we affirm.
The trial court held a bench trial in this quiet title action on September
29, 2020, and subsequently issued a memorandum opinion setting forth 105
Findings of Fact and 17 Conclusions of Law. The trial court also explained its
determination that RCC’s deed to the Property was valid and that a deed
purportedly conveying the Property to Rolon was null and void and must be
stricken. See Order and Memorandum Opinion, 10/27/20. Appellants filed a
post-trial motion, which the court denied on November 24, 2020. Appellants
then filed a notice of appeal. We issued a rule to show cause directing
Appellants (1) to praecipe the trial court prothonotary to enter judgment and
(2) to file a certified copy of the docket sheet with this Court reflecting entry
of judgment. On February 17, 2021, judgment was entered on the trial court
docket and the rule to show cause was discharged. Therefore, the appeal is
now properly before us.
Appellants present three issues for our consideration:
1. Was Pastor Luis Rodriguez terminated as Pastor and/or
President of [PI]?
2. Did Pastor Luis Rodriguez resign as Pastor of [PI]?
3. Was the transfer of 4931-35 N. 6th St., Philadelphia, PA from
[PI] to [RCC] legal?
Appellants’ Brief at 5-6.
-2-
J-S31004-21
We first note that Appellants filed a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors
complained of on appeal identifying five alleged errors, including the second
and third issues set forth above. However, the first issue presented in their
brief was not included in the Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore, we shall not
consider it. See R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b)
statement are waived).
We next note that the argument section of Appellants’ brief is devoid of
citation to legal authority, with the exception of a reference to board member’s
obligations under the non-profit law (Appellant’s Brief at 15). As this Court
has explained:
“The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
discussion and citation of pertinent authorities.” Estate of
Lakatosh, 656 A.2d 1378, 1381 (Pa. Super. 1995). “This Court
will not consider the merits of an argument which fails to cite
relevant case or statutory authority.” Iron Age Corp. v. Dvorak,
880 A.2d 657, 665 (Pa. Super. 2005). Failure to cite relevant legal
authority constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal. Eichman v.
McKeon, 824 A.2d 305 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 839
A.2d 352 (Pa. 2003).
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209-10 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations
modified). As in Whitley, Appellants here failed to cite legal authority in
support of their issues. Their failure in this regard waives their issues for
purposes of review. Id. at 210 (citing Iron Age Corp.; Eichman; Pa.R.A.P.
2101; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)). However, as demonstrated below, even if their
issues were not waived, Appellants would not be entitled to relief.
-3-
J-S31004-21
“In reviewing an action to quiet title, an appellate court’s review is
limited to determining whether the findings of fact are supported by
competent evidence, whether an error of law has been committed, and
whether there has been a manifest abuse of discretion.” Regions Mortgage,
Inc. v. Muthler, 889 A.2d 39, 41 (Pa. 2005) (internal citation and quotation
omitted). Further, as this Court has recognized,
Our review in a non-jury case is limited to whether the findings of
the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether
the trial court committed error in the application of law. We must
grant the court’s findings of fact the same weight and effect as
the verdict of a jury and, accordingly, may disturb the non-jury
verdict only if the court’s findings are unsupported by competent
evidence or the court committed legal error that affected the
outcome of the trial. It is not the role of an appellate court to pass
on the credibility of witnesses; hence we will not substitute our
judgment for that of the factfinder.
Hollock v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 842 A.2d 409, 413-14 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en
banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 903 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2006)
(internal citations and quotation omitted).
At issue before the trial court were two conflicting deeds for the
Property, both of which were filed of record with the Philadelphia County
Recorder of Deeds in August 2018. Findings of Fact at ¶ 2. RCC filed suit
seeking to quiet title after learning of a deed reflecting PI as the purported
transferor of a 2016 deed to the Property, with Rodriguez, former Pastor of
PI, conveying title to Rolon as President of PI. Id. at ¶¶ 19-21. There is no
dispute that Rolon was the owner of Modern Development Group (“MDC”),
which held title to the Property in 2016 when MDC purportedly sold or
-4-
J-S31004-21
transferred the property to PI for a stated amount of $100,000. Id. at ¶¶ 8-
9, 25.
RCC and PI are both non-profit religious organizations. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 10,
56. For contracts for the sale of real estate, PI’s by-laws require approval of
two-third of the church’s membership in a special meeting. PI’s board must
then pass a resolution authorizing the appropriate officer to enter into the
contract on behalf of PI. Id. at ¶ 63.
At some point prior to January 7, 2018, PI’s board of directors
discovered certain actions taken by then-Pastor Rodriguez that the board
deemed serious and improper. Id. at ¶ 64. On January 7, 2018, the board
officers notified Rodriguez that they were considering emergent action. That
day, prior to regularly-scheduled worship services, they presented the list of
concerns and allegations—including concerns regarding financial matters—
they were considering as a basis for termination of his board position as well
as his position as Pastor. Id. at ¶¶ 65-67. Although the board intended to
proceed in accordance with the by-laws to bring about the termination,
Rodriguez summarily cancelled the January 7 services, appeared in front of
the congregation, and announced he would resign his positions with PI. Id.
at ¶¶ 68-69. Rodriguez left the church on that day and never returned. Id.
at ¶ 70. The PI board did not initiate the termination process, relying on
Rodriguez’s announced resignation. Id. at ¶ 71. The PI board formed a new
board. Id. at ¶ 73.
-5-
J-S31004-21
The new board subsequently voted to dissolve the non-profit corporation
and proceed with dissolution in accordance with the by-laws. Id. at ¶¶ 75-
78. The board voted to transfer the church building to RCC, a religious
501(c)(3) organization, at a nominal cost. The deed reflecting that transfer
was dated August 1, 2018 and filed with the Recorder of Deeds on August 21,
2018. The deed was notarized, with all three board members/officers signing
the deed in the presence of a notary. Id. at ¶¶ 80-82.
Unbeknownst to PI and its board of directors, Rodriguez executed a deed
to the church building to Rolon on August 9, 2018. On the deed, identified as
an “Accommodation Deed Only,” Rodriguez “falsely held himself out as the
‘President’ of PI,”, despite not having served in any official capacity for PI since
January 7, 2018, and despite not having attended any board meetings since
that time, not being listed in PI’s records as its President, and not having
sought board approval for the conveyance. Id. at ¶¶ 83-85. Although the
deed reflected consideration in the amount of $100,000, both Rodriguez and
Rolon testified that no money changed hands. Id. at ¶ 88.
Rodriguez claims he retained unilateral authority to dispose of the
church building because he was not officially removed as Pastor in accordance
with the by-laws. Id. at ¶ 89. However, he acknowledged he did not seek or
obtain approval from the board of directors before executing the deed to Rolon
and was aware that the by-laws prohibited a transfer to a non-charitable
entity, in this case, Rolon, an individual. Id. at ¶¶ 92, 96. “It is clear from
-6-
J-S31004-21
testimony of record and the court’s assessment of the credibility of Rolon and
Rodriguez that they were aware that PI had not authorized Rodriguez’s actions
to transfer the PI property to Rolon[,] and Rolon and Rodriguez were
intentionally and mutually deceptive.” Id. at ¶ 95 (with minor alterations).
The trial court concluded that RCC is the fee simple owner of the
Property by virtue of the deed from PI that was executed by the three officers
of PI. Conclusion of Law at ¶ 1. The court further determined that whether
Rodriguez resigned or was removed is a collateral matter with no bearing on
the outcome of this action because, under PI’s by-laws, the “Pastor” has no
authority to convey real estate. Id. at ¶ 3. Further, as of August 9, 2018,
Rodriguez had no authority as President to execute any deed on behalf of PI
because he did not hold the office of President. Id. at ¶ 4. Moreover,
Rodriguez admitted he did not seek approval of the board before executing
the deed as required by the by-laws and, therefore, he had no authority to act
in the name of PI to transfer the church building. Id. at ¶ 5. “The deed
obtained by Rolon signed by Rodriguez was not undertaken in good faith and
is fraudulent and/or void ab initio and of no effect and must be stricken.” Id.
at ¶ 6 (with minor alterations). Based on its observations of Rolon and
Rodriguez, the court found “their testimony and demeanor to be coordinated,
contrived and lacking credibility.” Id. at ¶ 16. “[W]eighing all the evidence
and testimony,” the court deemed “the ‘agreements’ and purported Deed
-7-
J-S31004-21
between Rodriguez and Rolon to be a fiction and the by-product of negligent
or intentional deception by [Appellants].” Id. at ¶ 17.
After listing its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court
provided discussion in which it offered analysis of the claims as well as the
testimony presented at the September 29, 2020 hearing. The court noted
that it found the testimony of the RCC representative and the testimony of
the PI board members credible, while the characterizing the testimony of
Rodriguez and Rolon as “evasive, coordinated and not believable.” Trial Court
Memorandum, 10/27/20, at 17-18. As noted above, it is not the role of this
Court to pass on credibility and we will not substitute our judgment for that of
the trial court as factfinder. Hollock, 842 A.2d at 413-14. Here, the trial
court determined that Rodriguez resigned as Pastor of PI and, consequently,
did not have any authority to execute a deed for the Property in August 2018.
Moreover, the members of the PI board as of August 2018 did possess
authority to execute a deed in favor of RCC and did so in accordance with the
by-laws.
Based on our review of the record, even if Appellants’ issues were not
waived for lack of citation to legal authority, we would find that the trial court’s
findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and that it did not
commit any error of law or manifest abuse of discretion in finding that the
purported deed from Rodriguez to Rolon was a nullity and the deed from PI to
-8-
J-S31004-21
RCC was a valid deed. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order striking the
deed to Rolon as a nullity and affirming the validity of the deed to RCC.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/18/2022
-9-