J-S84003-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOE BUCK PROPERTIES, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RANDY ROCCO
Appellant No. 1061 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 23, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2015-07371
BEFORE: OLSON, SOLANO and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 20, 2016
Appellant, Randy Rocco, appeals pro se from the order entered on
March 23, 2016, granting summary judgment to Joe Buck Properties, LLC
(Joe Buck) in an ejectment action. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as
follows. In 2003, Appellant executed a mortgage and promissory note on a
property located at 224 Creekwood Drive in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In
2009, the mortgage company filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure
against Appellant and later filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant
filed a response and cross-motion for summary judgment, alleging the
mortgage company fraudulently obtained the mortgage. The trial court
granted the mortgage company’s motion for summary judgment. In its
subsequent opinion, the trial court addressed Appellant’s allegations of
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S84003-16
fraud, specifically rejecting Appellant’s claim that the mortgagee’s agent
notarized her own signature on the mortgage. On appeal, we affirmed the
trial court’s decision in an unpublished memorandum. See Citi Mortgage,
Inc. v. Randy Rocco, 121 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished
memorandum). Our Supreme Court denied further review. See Citi
Mortgage, Inc. v. Randy Rocco, 128 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2015).
In August 2015, Joe Buck purchased the property by sheriff’s sale. In
October 2015, Joe Buck filed a complaint in ejectment against Appellant. In
January 2016, Joe Buck filed a motion for summary judgment that the trial
court granted by order filed on March 23, 2016. This timely pro se appeal
resulted. On May 16, 2016, Appellant filed an application for an emergency
stay of ejectment with this Court, which we denied by per curiam order on
May 20, 2016.
On appeal, Appellant presents four allegations of error related to his
prior claims of fraud in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action. Those
issues have already been decided and we are bound by the prior panel’s
decision. See Burkett v. St. Francis Country House, 133 A.3d 22, 36
(Pa. Super. 2016) (The Superior Court is constitutionally bound by prior
Superior Court panel decisions). Thus, only issues related to the ejectment
action would be properly before us.
However, during the pendency of this appeal, Joe Buck filed a motion
to dismiss the appeal as moot. In its motion, Joe Buck avers the ejectment
proceeded and it secured possession of the premises on June 7, 2016. In
-2-
J-S84003-16
support of its motion, Joe Buck attached a copy of the Buck’s County docket
in this matter noting the eviction was completed. Appellant has not
responded. This Court has previously determined:
Our courts cannot decide moot or abstract questions, nor
can we enter a judgment or decree to which effect cannot
be given. As a general rule, an actual case or controversy
must exist at all stages of the judicial process, or a case will
be dismissed as moot. An issue can become moot during
the pendency of an appeal due to an intervening change in
the facts of the case or due to an intervening change in the
applicable law.
* * *
This Court will decide questions that otherwise have been
rendered moot when one or more of the following
exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case
involves a question of great public importance, 2) the
question presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude
appellate review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer
some detriment due to the decision of the trial court.
Orfield v. Weindel, 52 A.3d 275, 277–78 (Pa. Super. 2012). Here,
because the issue of possession, which was the subject of the ejectment
action, is resolved, there is no actual controversy. See Wolf v. Long, 468
A.2d 508, 509 (Pa. Super. 1983) (dismissing an appeal from an ejectment
action as moot, where the only questions before the court related to
possession and where the tenants vacated the premises while the appeal
was pending). None of the three exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply
herein.
Motion to dismiss the appeal as moot granted. Appeal dismissed.
-3-
J-S84003-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/20/2016
-4-
Joe Buck Properties v. Rocco, R.
Combined Opinion