Andresen, C. v. Ody, D. ( 2021 )

J-A03018-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CONSTANCE WILSON ANDRESEN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
DAVID A. ODY, ODY & WILSON, : No. 1037 MDA 2020
SCOTT GILL, PETER M. :
MCMANAMON, GILL MCMANAMON & :
GHANER, PALMER REALTY, KEVIN E. :
AND IRMA DETWILER, AND RONALD :
DETWILER
Appeal from the Order Entered July 14, 2020,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County,
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-1651.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED JANUARY 27, 2021
Constance Wilson Andresen files this pro se appeal from the trial court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, dismissing her
complaint with prejudice, and dismissing and striking a lis pendens she filed
against a parcel of real property. In response to the filing of this appeal,
Appellee Ronald Detwiler requests an award of counsel fees pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 2744. We quash Andresen’s appeal, but remand so that the trial
court may determine a reasonable amount of attorney fees to be awarded to
Appellee Ronald Detwiler.
The pertinent facts and procedural history, as gleaned from the trial
court’s opinion and findings, as well as our review of the record, may be
J-A03018-21
summarized as follows: This case involves an approximate 43-acre parcel of
real property located in Clay Township, Huntingdon County. By deed dated
August 18, 2008, Thomas R. Wilson and Appellee Ronald Detwiler sold the
real estate in question to Kevin and Irma Detwiler for $128,000.00. Appellee
Ronald Detwiler is Wilson’s nephew. Andresen is Wilson’s daughter.1
On August 17, 2010, Wilson filed a writ of summons against Ronald,
Kevin, and Irma Detwiler. The case remained inactive for several years. On
September 30, 2014, Andresen filed documents on Wilson’s behalf as his
attorney-in-fact. Although a complaint was never filed, other documents
entered on the docket indicated that Andresen attempted to challenge the
transfer of the property based upon multiple claims, including undue influence
and fraud. On March 30, 2015, the trial court dismissed Wilson’s lawsuit for
failure to file a complaint. In a judgment order entered on December 8, 2015,
this Court dismissed Andresen’s appeal, and, on May 3, 2016, our Supreme
Court denied Andresen’s petition for allowance of appeal. See Wilson v.
Detwiler, 135 A.3d 653 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 141 A.3d 482 (Pa.
2016).
On July 12, 2017, Andresen filed the complaint at issue against multiple
parties including the Detwilers, as well as the attorney and law firm who
represented her in the 2010 action (David A. Ody, and Ody & Wilson), the
____________________________________________
1 According to Andresen, Wilson died on February 4, 2020.
-2-
J-A03018-21
attorney and law firm who had previously prepared powers of attorney for
Andresen and her relatives (Gill McManamon and McManamon & Ghaner), and
the realtor involved in the real estate transaction (Palmer Realty).2 Among
the claims raised in this complaint, Andresen averred that Appellees Kevin and
Irma Detwiler’s deed to the property at issue was invalid because it was
obtained via elder abuse and fraud committed by them, as well as Appellee
Ronald Detwiler.
Appellee Ronald Detwiler filed preliminary objections to the complaint.3
On September 29, 2017, the trial court granted Appellee Ronald Detwiler’s
preliminary objections and directed Andresen to file an amended complaint
within sixty days.
Andresen filed an amended pro se complaint on November 22, 2017.4
Appellee Ronald Detwiler filed and answer and new matter. Among the
defenses he alleged in new matter was the claim that Andresen’s action was
____________________________________________
2 Our review of the docket entries in this case reveal that Andresen has filed
a plethora of responses and/or motions as to each Appellee. In summarizing
the procedural history, we highlight only those filings most relevant to the
instant appeal.
3 All of the other Appellees at different times filed preliminary objections. In
subsequent orders, these objections were sustained and all Appellees other
than the Detwilers were dismissed as parties.
4 As stated by the trial court, in addition to the claims she raised previously,
Andresen raised “an all-encompassing conspiracy among lawyers, law firms,
real estate firms, banks, notaries and people’s spouses . . . to facilitate the
Detwilers’ fraudulent scheme to obtain the property.” Opinions and Findings,
7/14/20, at 3 n.1.
-3-
J-A03018-21
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For their part, Kevin and Irma
Detwiler filed a motion to strike a lis pendens Andresen had entered against
the property.
On July 6, 2018, Appellee Ronald Detwiler filed a motion to stay the case
because the Pennsylvania State Police had filed various criminal charges
against Andresen based on purportedly forged documents that she filed in the
case. On July 16, 2018, the trial court granted the motion.
This case was stayed pending the resolution of the criminal charges filed
against Andresen. Ultimately, Andresen was found guilty of one count of
barratry,5 and the trial court sentenced her to a $250.00 fine. See Opinion
and Findings, 7/14/20, at 6.
On December 12, 2019, Andresen filed a motion to lift the stay in this
case and proceed with discovery. The trial court lifted the stay on February
10, 2020. On March 10, 2020, Detwiler filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that Andresen’s barratry conviction included an admission that this
case was unjustified and vexatious. This motion also requested counsel fees
and costs.
By order entered July 14, 2020, the trial court granted Appellee Ronald
Detwiler’s motion for summary judgment because Andresen’s fraud action was
____________________________________________
5See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5109 (providing, “[a] person is guilty of a misdemeanor
of the third degree if he [or she] vexes others with unjust and vexatious
suits).”
-4-
J-A03018-21
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.6 In addition, the trial court
dismissed and struck from the record the lis pendens Andresen had filed.
Finally, the trial court awarded Appellee Ronald Detwiler attorney’s fees and
costs in the amount of $7,834.00, and awarded Appellees Kevin and Irma
Detwiler attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $5,006.25.
Following the entry of this order, Andresen filed multiple documents
including a motion for reconsideration and a motion seeking to compel
discovery. The trial court denied all of these motions. This timely appeal
followed. Both Andresen and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
Andresen presents sixteen “questions” on appeal. See Andresen’s Brief
at 7-9. Before attempting to address any of these claims, we make the
following observations. First, with regard to Andresen’s pro se brief, we note
that appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. If the defects in
the brief are “substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or
dismissed.” Id. This Court has stated:
[A]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials
filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no
____________________________________________
6 Contrary to one of Andresen’s main claims throughout her brief, the trial
court did not grant summary judgment based upon her barratry conviction.
Rather, the trial court used this conviction to conclude Andresen’s “civil suit
[was] unjust and a vexatious proceeding.” Opinion and Findings, 7/14/20, at
7 (footnote omitted).
-5-
J-A03018-21
special benefit upon an appellant. Commonwealth v.
Maris, 427 Pa. Super. 566, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 n.1
(1993). Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the
procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the
Court. Id. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if an
appellate fails to conform with the requirements set forth in
the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id.,Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.2d 768, 776-77 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(citations omitted).
Second, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a) mandates
that the brief of the appellant “shall consist of the following matters,
separately and distinctly entitled and in the following order:
(1) Statement of Jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the
standard of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to
challenge the discretionary aspects of a
sentence, if applicable.
(8) Argument for appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief
sought.
(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this rule.
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement
of errors complained of on appeal, filed with the
trial court pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), or an
-6-
J-A03018-21
averment that no order requiring a statement
of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was entered.
(12) The certificates of compliance required by
Pa.R.A.P. 127 and 2135(d).
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Citing the above rules, this Court has explained that we
“will not consider the merits of an argument, which fails to cite relevant case
or statutory authority. Failure to cite relevant legal authority constitutes
waiver of the claim on appeal.” In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209
(Pa. Super. 2012); see also Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149 (Pa.
Super. 1982).
Although Andresen attempts to structure her brief to comply with the
Rule 2111(a) requirements, multiple shortcomings therein have hampered
effective appellate review. See Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski,
904 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006); Sanford, supra. For instance, while
her brief contains a paragraph entitled “Basis of Appellate Jurisdiction,” it does
not contain citation to proper authority, and her brief lacks a proper statement
of the applicable standard and scope of review. See Andresen’s Brief at 7.
In addition, Andresen’s statement of the order in question appears
nowhere in her brief, the argument portion of her brief cites no pertinent case
law or statutory authority, and her argument is not “divided into as many
parts as there are questions to be argued. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Indeed,
Andresen presents no relevant argument regarding the basis for the trial
-7-
J-A03018-21
court’s grant of summary judgment—that the applicable statute of limitation
bars her 2017 complaint.
Our reading of Andresen’s brief readily establishes that she
misapprehends the Superior Court’s role as an appellate court. Considered in
its entirety, Andresen’s brief consists of no more than a rambling, and at times
repetitive, discourse of complaints and allegations of conspiracy involving
many parties, including the trial court, the Detwilers, and their counsel, to
reach what she believes was an unjust result.
This Court’s appellate function is to correct legal errors made by the
trial court. It is not our duty or even our prerogative to give pro se litigants
a “do over,” based upon their ignorance of the judicial system or our Rules of
Appellate Procedure. As noted above, our appellate rules provide that, if
defects in a brief are substantial, then we may quash the appeal. Freedland,
supra; Sanford, supra. We do so now, because the defects in Andresen’s
pro se brief are substantial.
As a final matter, in his brief, Appellee Ronald Detwiler requests an
award of additional attorney’s fees he expended for defending this appeal,
because it is “frivolous” and Andresen’s conduct has been “dilatory, obdurate
or vexatious.” Pa.R.A.P. 2744. “The appellate court may remand the case to
the trial court to determine the amount of damages authorized by this rule.”
Id. In support of this claim, Appellee Ronald Detwiler asserts:
As in the trial court, [Andresen] has presented a staggering
volume of documents to this Court, including 89 pages of
material that supposedly constitutes her brief and
-8-
J-A03018-21
reproduced record. These documents are hard to follow at
best, generally completely confusing, and clearly designed
to bury this Court and the Appellees under their sheer
weight, in hopes of granting [Andresen] a victory due to the
surrender of her opponents. Additionally, [Andresen] filed
a truly astonishing volume of documents in the trial court
after its award of [attorney’s] fess to [Appellee Ronald]
Detwiler.
Appellee Ronald Detwiler’s Brief at 10-11. He then identifies each of these
lengthy documents, and further states:
[Andresen’s twenty page Rule 1925(b) Statement] seems to
be little more than a listing of her grievances against the
trial court for its various rulings on this case. Of note, this
last filing includes what appears to be a non-precedential
opinion of this Court on a civil case involving the trial court
judge in a private matter completely unrelated to this case.
Clearly, these documents have not been presented in good
faith, but rather as a continuation of [Andresen’s] pattern of
unjust litigation and vexatiousness [sic]. Accordingly, this
Court should award [Appellee Ronald] Detwiler his
reasonable [attorney’s] fees incurred in defending this
frivolous appeal.
Appellee Ronald Detwiler’s Brief at 11-12.
Our review of the appellate brief and voluminous reproduced record filed
in this case supports Detwiler’s characterization. Thus, although we quash
Andresen’s appeal, we conclude that her pursuit of it was “dilatory, obdurate
or vexatious.” Pa.R.A.P. 2744. We therefore remand this case so that the
trial court may consider an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to Appellee
Ronald Detwiler pursuant to Rule 2744. See generally, Mellon Bank, N.A.
v. Druzisky, 800 A.2d 955 (Pa. Super. 2002).
-9-
J-A03018-21
Appeal quashed. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this
memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 01/27/2021
- 10 -