J-S14006-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO : PENNSYLVANIA
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A. :
:
:
v. :
:
:
PATRICK F. COSTANTINO, A/K/A :
PASQUALE F. COSTANTINO, A/K/A :
PATRICK COSTANTINO, KAREN E. :
COSTANTINO, A/K/A KAREN ANN :
KARBOSKI AND THE UNITED STATES :
OF AMERICA :
:
:
APPEAL OF: PATRICK F. :
COSTANTINO, A/K/A PASQUALE F. :
COSTANTINO, A/K/A PATRICK :
COSTANTINO : No. 607 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered March 14, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Civil Division at No(s): 2014-06640
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 28, 2017
Appellant, Patrick F. Constantino a/k/a Pasquale F. Constantino a/k/a
Patrick Constantino, appeals from the order of the Luzerne County Court of
Common Pleas, which entered summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., in this mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S14006-17
restate them.1
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT…ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN
DISMISSING [APPELLANT]’S NEW MATTER ASSERTING
THAT [APPELLEE]’S MORTGAGE WAS UNLAWFUL AND IN
CONTRAVENTION OF BANKING REGULATIONS?
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN
GRANTING [APPELLEE]’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT?
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).
With respect to Appellant’s first argument challenging “the dismissal of
his new matter,” we observe that appellate briefs must conform in all
material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355
(Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 564 Pa. 696, 764 A.2d 50 (2000) (citing
Pa.R.A.P. 2101). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing specific
requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal). Regarding the
argument section of an appellate brief, Rule 2119(a) provides:
Rule 2119. Argument
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as
many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall
____________________________________________
1
We make the following additions to the trial court’s Rule 1925(a)(1)
opinion: Appellant and then-wife, Karen Constantino a/k/a Karen Ann
Karboski, executed the residential mortgage and promissory note in favor of
Wachovia Bank, N.A. on May 5, 2007. Appellant has not made a single
payment since he defaulted on the mortgage on January 26, 2012, and the
last payment he made was on December 28, 2011.
-2-
J-S14006-17
have at the head of each part―in distinctive type or in
type distinctively displayed―the particular point treated
therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Importantly:
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. This
Court 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), appeal
denied, 620 Pa. 724, 69 A.3d 603 (2013) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super.
2006) (explaining appellant’s arguments must adhere to rules of appellate
procedure, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived
on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those where
party has failed to cite any authority in support of contention); Estate of
Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating rules of
appellate procedure make clear appellant must support each question raised
by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority; absent reasoned
discussion of law in appellate brief, this Court’s ability to provide appellate
review is hampered, necessitating waiver of issue on appeal).
Instantly, Appellant fails to cite relevant legal authority to support his
argument that the mortgage was unlawful. Instead, he merely cites the
legal standard for summary judgment. Appellant baldly states that the
-3-
J-S14006-17
mortgage was unlawful and violated banking regulations because “the cross-
collateralization of the loan with the loan of…Appellant’s former wife was
done after the parties were divorced.” Appellant’s argument is incoherent
and unsupported by relevant legal authority. Appellant’s failure to develop
his claim on appeal precludes meaningful review and arguably constitutes
waiver of his first issue on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Pa.R.A.P. 2101;
Whitley, supra; Lackner, supra; Haiko, supra.
Moreover, with respect to both issues on appeal, after a thorough
review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the
well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Lesa S. Gelb, we agree Appellant’s
issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and
properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed
June 3, 2016 at 7-16) (finding: preliminarily, Appellant filed 14-issue Rule
1925(b) statement; this case is straightforward mortgage foreclosure action
where all relevant facts were presented to court; case does not factually or
procedurally justify identification of 14 issues for appellate review;
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement includes issues, which are entirely
misplaced and not intended to be addressed with Superior Court; Appellant’s
Rule 1925(b) statement is nothing more than attempt to delay final
determination in this matter; Appellant waived all issues on appeal for filing
unnecessarily complex, incoherent, and lengthy Rule 1925(b) statement;
moreover, (1) Appellant’s new matter did not raise any material issues of
-4-
J-S14006-17
fact but merely stated conclusions of law irrelevant to this foreclosure
action; in Appellant’s response to Appellee’s summary judgment motion,
Appellant failed to identify relevant facts in dispute or point to contradictions
in record; specifically, Appellant failed to: (a) attach to his response
supporting documents; (b) make factual allegations related to other loans
and guaranties; and (c) properly identify any cross-collateralization
provision; information related to other loans and guaranties are not in
record; Appellant failed to identify issue of material fact related to cross-
collateralization clause; (2) Appellant baldly denied in his answer to
Appellee’s complaint that he is in default under mortgage and amount due
and owing on mortgage; Appellant failed to identify in his answer those
payments he claims he made under mortgage; information on Appellant’s
payments not stated in complaint was within Appellant’s control; therefore,
Appellant’s denial of default is deemed admission of default and amount due
and owing under mortgage; Appellant’s response to motion for summary
judgment rested completely on pleadings; Appellant failed to attach
supporting documents to demonstrate genuine issue of material fact).
Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
-5-
J-S14006-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/28/2017
-6-