J-A09026-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CAROLE L. SCHEIB 

Appellant

v.

THE BANK OF NY MELLON, N.A. 

F/K/A MELLON BANK NA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 952 WDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered August 11, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at 

No(s): GD-20-001980.

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED APRIL 9, 2021

Carole L. Scheib appeals pro se from the order granting the preliminary 

objections filed by The Bank of NY Mellon, N.A., F/K/A Mellon Bank NA, (“the 

Bank”), and dismissing the action with prejudice.

This appeal involves Scheib’s latest attempt to relitigate the entry of a 

default judgment entered against her in a mortgage foreclosure action, and 

her subsequent eviction from her home located at 54 Lawson Avenue in 

Crafton, Pennsylvania.

On February 6, 2020, Scheib filed the complaint at issue, in which she 

asserted various counts including “Abuse of Power,” “Official Oppression,” 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A09026-21

- 2 -

“Misrepresentation,” “Lender Liability,” and “Criminal Intent.” In her prayer 

for relief, Scheib sought a full and final resolution of her claims regarding the 

Crafton property. In response, the Bank filed preliminary objections based on 

improper service, failure of pleadings to confirm with law or rule of court, 

failure to state a claim, and res judicata/collateral estoppel. By order entered 

August 11, 2020, the trial court granted the Bank’s preliminary objections and 

dismissed the case with prejudice, based upon res judicata, because, in the 

past Scheib had challenged the default judgment and eviction without success.

The trial court summarized Scheib’s claim in the present appeal, as well 

as her prior litigation, as follows:

As to this case, [Scheib] complains that during the 

telephonic hearing on the preliminary objections, the court 

mentioned the existence of orders entered by other 

Allegheny County judges that prohibit her from filing 

pleadings unless drafted by an attorney or by leave of court.

The first of these orders was entered by Judge [Ronald] 

Folino on July 7, 2003 at GD-00-15770, appealed at 1454 

WDA 2003, and affirmed in an unpublished memorandum at 

Scheib v. Port Authority Transit Company, 852 A.2d 

1263 (Pa. Super. 2004) [(nothing that Scheib had a history 

of filing, both in federal and state court, indecipherable and 

frivolous court documents)].

The second order was entered by Judge [Judith] 

Friedman on January 3, 2012 at GD 11-18030, appealed at 

634 WDA 2012, and affirmed in an unpublished 

memorandum at Scheib v. Keystone Residential 

Properties, LLC, 62 A.3d 449 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(dismissing action involving the Crafton property upon the 

doctrine of res judicata)]. These two orders (plus another 

order on March 10, 2017 by Judge Friedman continuing the 

prohibition against pro se filing) were affirmed most recently 

in Scheib v. Rozberil, GD 16-003162, appealed at 493 
J-A09026-21

- 3 -

WDA 2017, affirmed at 183 A.3d 1056 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

[(unpublished judgment order)].

Beside the three Superior Court appeals noted above, 

[Scheib] has filed an additional five Superior Court and two 

Commonwealth Court appeals regarding her mortgage 

foreclosure.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/30/20, at 3-4.

In Scheib v. Rozberil, this Court explained its reasons for dismissing 

Scheib’s appeal:

We dismiss this appeal because: 1) the matter is res 

judicata; 2) [Scheib] should not have been allowed to file 

the lawsuit in the first instance as two prior orders, which 

both were upheld on appeal, prohibited her from doing so; 

and 3) the arguments that [Scheib] raise[d] primarily relate 

to the validity of the 1998 mortgage foreclosure proceeding, 

and are incomprehensible and incapable of being addressed. 

[See] Ibn-Sadiika v. Riester, 551 A.2d 1112, 1114 

(Pa.Super. 1988) (“When an appellant fails to carry forward, 

or is indecipherably vague in, argumentation upon a certain 

point in his appellate brief, that point is waived[”)].

Id., unpublished judgment order at 3.

The above reasons apply with equal force to the present appeal. Scheib 

was prohibited from filing the complaint at issue, her claim again seeks a “full 

and final” resolution regarding the Crafton property, and the supporting 

arguments in her brief are indecipherable.

Appeal dismissed.
J-A09026-21

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/9/2021