J-A26038-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JAMES B. NUTTER & COMPANY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ETHAN B. COWLES :
:
Appellant : No. 716 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
No(s): MG-17-000914
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2018
Ethan B. Cowles (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order granting
summary judgment in favor of Appellee, James B. Nutter & Company (Nutter),
and entering judgment in favor of Nutter in the amount of $204,689.07 plus
interests and costs in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm.
The trial court summarized:
On April 23, 2007, Appellant borrowed $360,000.00 from
All-Pennsylvania Reverse Mortgage Inc. To secure that debt,
[Appellant] executed a Mortgage to All-Pennsylvania Reverse
Mortgage, Inc. which was recorded on June 8, 2007. [Appellant’s]
Mortgage is in default for failure to pay taxes and provide [Nutter]
with evidence of payment. On July 7, 2017, Nutter filed its
Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure. [Appellant] filed an Answer
on August 16, 2017. On February 8, 2018, Nutter filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On April 20, 2018, th[e trial c]ourt
granted Nutter’s Motion for Summary Judgment entering
judgment in favor of Nutter and against [Appellant] in the amount
of $204,689.07. It is from that decision that [Appellant] appeals.
J-A26038-18
Trial Court Opinion, 7/10/18, at 1.
Preliminarily, when reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary
judgment:
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.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record clearly
shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The
reviewing court must view the record in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts as to the existence
of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party. Only
when the facts are so clear that reasonable minds could not differ
can a trial court properly enter summary judgment.
Michael v. Stock, 162 A.3d 465, 472–73 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation
omitted). “[P]arties seeking to avoid the entry of summary judgment against
them may not rest upon the averments contained in their pleadings. On the
contrary, they are required to show, by depositions, answers to
interrogatories, admissions or affidavits, that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Washington Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Stein, 515 A.2d 980, 981 (Pa.
Super. 1986) (citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035(d)).
Further, “[t]he holder of a mortgage is entitled to summary judgment if
the mortgagor admits that the mortgage is in default, the mortgagor has failed
to pay on the obligation, and the recorded mortgage is in the specified
amount.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa. Super.
2014), appeal denied, 112 A.3d 648 (Pa. 2015).
-2-
J-A26038-18
In his appellate brief, Appellant fails to present a cogent legal argument.
Appellant has not designated a statement of questions for this Court’s review,
and his entire brief consists of a four-page narrative in which he claims to
dispute “illegal charges” and “fraudulent charges” and makes the conclusory
statement that “[t]he [a]mount of [m]ortgage is fraudulent and hereby
disputed.” See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) (“The brief of the appellant . . . shall
consist of . . . [a] Statement of the questions involved”), 2116(a); Appellant’s
Brief at 4-5. Appellant does not cite any legal authority or provide any legal
analysis. See 2119(b). In sum, Appellant’s brief is simply a personal and
largely nonsensical account of the case which fails to conform to the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P.
2101-2119.
Conversely, Nutter argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in granting summary judgment in this foreclosure action on Appellant’s
residential property “because there existed no genuine issue as to any
material fact that the Appellant had defaulted on the terms of his Mortgage,
that the Appellant failed to cure the default, and that [Nutter] was the
mortgagee of record, in possession of the Note, and Appellant was sent the
pre-foreclosure notice.” Nutter’s Brief at 7. Nutter states that it was assigned
the mortgage that was recorded on June 8, 2007, and that Appellant’s
indebtedness was secured by a promissory note and properly recorded. Id.
at 4-5. The complaint in mortgage foreclosure was initiated after Appellant
-3-
J-A26038-18
failed to pay property taxes and provide evidence of payment to Nutter. Id.
at 5.
Likewise, the trial court reasoned:
[Appellant] filed various pleadings but failed to provide a
defense to the foreclosure action. In his Answer to the Complaint,
he stated that he is aware of the amount he incurred initially, but
disputes any amount above $100,000 that has occurred since
April of 2007.
Nutter alleges that it is entitled to Summary Judgment
because there is no genuine issue as to material fact in this case.
Nutter claims that [Appellant] defaulted on the mortgage.
[Appellant] admitted the existence of the mortgage and executed
the Mortgage knowing that he would be responsible for the
payments. . . .
[Appellant] did not plead specific facts in response to the
allegations in the Complaint regarding the mortgage account, the
fact of the default and the amount due, and is therefore deemed
to have admitted the allegations. . . .
[T trial c]ourt has determined that no genuine issues of material
fact exist between the parties. Nutter has produced evidence that
it is the mortgagee of record by virtue of a recorded Assignment
of Mortgage recorded on June 8, 2007. Summary judgment is
appropriate.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/10/18, at 1-3.
Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Although
Appellant is pro se, this status does not relieve him of his duty to properly
raise and develop an appealable claim. Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d
1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996). This Court has stated:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal
if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in
-4-
J-A26038-18
the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although this
Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se
litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the
appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent
himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent,
assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his
undoing.
In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-1212 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations
omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011).
For the above reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order entering
summary judgment in favor of Nutter in this mortgage foreclosure action.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/19/2018
-5-