Rohm, T. v. Dutch Creek Estates ( 2020 )

J-S43031-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TED M. ROHM, AN INDIVIDUAL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
DUTCH CREEK ESTATES :
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., :
A PENNSYLVANIA NON-PROFIT :
CORPORATION; ELITE MANAGEMENT :
SERVICES GROUP, INC., A :
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION; :
INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT BY :
BUCCI, LLC (D/B/A ELITE :
MANAGEMENT SERVICES GROUP, :
INC.), AN OHIO LIMITED LIABILITY :
COMPANY AND PENNSYLVANIA :
REGISTERED FOREIGN LIMITED :
LIABILITY COMPANY; PAUL S. :
PIEFFER, AN INDIVIDUAL; ONORATO :
BUCCI, AN INDIVIDUAL; JUSTIN :
BURGH, AN INDIVIDUAL; VINCENT :
JAMES SACCO, AN INDIVIDUAL; :
JOHN BARNES, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND :
NATHAN AND TRACEY YOUNG, :
HUSBAND AND WIFE :
:
Appellees : No. 321 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered January 24, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
Civil Division at No(s): 18-10990
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED DECEMBER 21, 2020
Appellant, Ted M. Rohm, appeals pro se from the order entered in the
Butler County Court of Common Pleas, which sustained the preliminary
objections of Appellees, Dutch Creek Estates Homeowners’ Association, Elite
J-S43031-20
Management Services Group, Inc., Innovative Management by Bucci, LLC
(d/b/a Elite Management Services Group, Inc.), Paul S. Pieffer, Onorato Bucci,
Justin Burgh, Vincent James Sacco, and John Barnes, and dismissed
Appellant’s entire amended complaint with prejudice. We transfer this case
to Commonwealth Court due to our lack of appellate jurisdiction.
As a prefatory matter, Appellees object to the jurisdiction of this Court.
See Appellees’ Brief at 17-19. “[I]n deciding whether this Court has appellate
jurisdiction, we must consider all of the potential issues underlying the parties’
theories of the case. If any potential substantive issue (or participation of a
particular party) invokes the Commonwealth Court’s jurisdiction, transfer is
appropriate, and we must transfer prior to reaching the merits of the appeal.”
Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Committee, 218 A.3d 927, 934
(Pa.Super. 2019) (en banc) (emphasis in original). Significantly, the
Commonwealth Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals
involving not-for-profit corporations. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(5).
Instantly, Appellant’s claims relate to the corporate affairs of a not-for-
profit condominium association and its board members. Thus, jurisdiction of
this matter is properly vested in the Commonwealth Court. See Skytop
Meadow Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Paige, 177 A.3d 377 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2017)
(noting appellants initially filed notice of appeal with Superior Court, which
transferred matter; Commonwealth Court possessed jurisdiction over appeal
involving action by homeowners association); King v. Riverwatch
-2-
J-S43031-20
Condominium Owners Ass’n, 27 A.3d 276 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011), appeal
denied, 616 Pa. 665, 50 A.3d 693 (2012) (stating Superior Court transferred
appeal involving non-profit condominium owners association, and
Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction over appeals involving corporate affairs
of non-profit corporations and statutes regulating those affairs).1 Accordingly,
we transfer this case to the Commonwealth Court.
Appeal transferred.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/21/2020
____________________________________________
1“This Court is not bound by decisions of the Commonwealth Court. However,
such decisions provide persuasive authority, and we may turn to our
colleagues on the Commonwealth Court for guidance when appropriate.”
Petow v. Warehime, 996 A.2d 1083, 1089 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal
denied, 608 Pa. 648, 12 A.3d 371 (2010).
-3-