J. S33033/19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

VICTOR JAMES SANTARELLI, III, :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 Appellant :

:

v. :

:

THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH JOHN 

ABDA, III, JOSEPH ABDA,

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ESTATE OF JOSEPH JOHN ABDA, III 

AND MARIA ABDA

:

:

:

:

:

No. 72 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2018,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County

Civil Division at No. 2018-CV-4473

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 18, 2019

Victor James Santarelli, III, appeals from the December 12, 2018 order 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County granting the 

preliminary objections filed by The Estate of Joseph John Abda, III,

Joseph Abda, Acting Administrator of The Estate of Joseph John Abda, III and 

Mary Abda (collectively, “the Estate”) and dismissing appellant’s complaint

with prejudice.1 We affirm.

The trial court set forth the procedural history as follows:

 

1 We note that in a per curiam order filed February 5, 2019, 

Tamara Santarelli, appellant’s wife, was stricken by this court as an appellant 

in this appeal as she was not a party in the underlying case. (Per curiam

order, 2/5/19.)
J. S33033/19

- 2 -

On September 28, 2018, [appellant] and 

Tamara Santarelli filed a civil Complaint against [the 

Estate]. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, 

Tamara Santarelli listed her address as SCI 

Cambridge Springs. The [Estate] filed Preliminary 

Objections to said Complaint on October 16, 2018.

One of the [Estate’s] Preliminary Objections 

questioned the status of Ms. Santarelli as a party to 

this action, in that, despite not being included on the 

Writ of Summons filed in this matter, she maintains 

nevertheless that she is a proper Co-Plaintiff in this 

action. Tamara Santarelli signed her own name on 

the Complaint as a Plaintiff, and she signed 

[appellant’s] name to that document as well.

The Office of the Court Administrator of Lackawanna 

County sent a scheduling notice regarding oral 

argument on the Preliminary Objections on 

October 24, 2018 to [appellant] at his Jessup, PA 

residence, to Ms. Santarelli at her prison mailing 

address in Cambridge Springs, and to defense counsel 

John McGovern, Jr. at his Scranton, PA office. Said 

notice indicated that “Judge Tom Munley will hear oral 

argument on [the Estate’s] Preliminary Objections on 

December 11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.” at the Lackawanna 

County Courthouse in Courtroom Six. On the day and 

time of the scheduled argument regarding the Estate’s

Preliminary Objections, neither [appellant] nor 

Tamara Santarelli attended. Ms. Santarelli was likely 

still incarcerated, and [the trial c]ourt reviewed and 

considered the assertions and legal arguments she 

presented in the documents she filed in this civil

action. Defense counsel appeared and offered 

argument on the merits of the Preliminary Objections, 

and [the trial c]ourt then ruled in favor of [the Estate], 

signing an Order which granted the Preliminary 

Objections and dismissed the case with prejudice. All 

parties later received a copy of this Order by mail, 

which was sent from chambers.
J. S33033/19

- 3 -

Trial court opinion, 1/22/19 at 1-2.

2

 Appellant filed pro se a timely notice of 

appeal. The trial court did not require appellant to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). However, the 

trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Appellant raises 15 issues for our review.3 (See appellant’s brief at

3-5.) Appellant’s issue, “[d]id the trial court err in dismissing [a]ppellant’s 

complaint?” is, however, dispositive.

Appellant claims the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with 

prejudice when it granted the preliminary objections. (Id. at 41-52.)

Our standard of review of an order of the trial court 

overruling or granting preliminary objections is to 

determine whether the trial court committed an error 

of law. When considering the appropriateness of a 

ruling on preliminary objections, the appellate court 

must apply the same standard as the trial court.

Gross v. Nova Chem. Services, Inc., 161 A.3d 257, 262 (Pa.Super. 2017) 

(citations and brackets omitted).

 

2 The trial court opinion does not contain pagination; for the ease of our 

discussion, we have assigned each page a corresponding number.

3 We note that several of the issues raised refer to documents as having been 

filed by appellant. For example,

Did the trial court err in refusing to directly respond 

to [a]ppellant’s and Tamara Santarelli’s Motion to Join 

and Motion to Extend Time to File Complaint, filed on 

or about September 4, 2018?

Appellant’s brief at 3, ¶ 1. A review of the record reveals that those documents 

were, in fact, signed by and filed by only Tamara Santarelli, who is not a party 

to this action.
J. S33033/19

- 4 -

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1024(a) states, in pertinent part, 

as follows:

Rule 1024. Verification

(a) Every pleading containing an averment of fact 

not appearing of record in the action or 

containing a denial of fact shall state that the 

averment or denial is true upon the signer’s 

personal knowledge or information and belief 

and shall be verified. . . .

. . . .

(c) The verification shall be made by one or more 

of the parties filing the pleading . . . .

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1024(a) & (c). The term “‘verified,’ when used in reference to a 

written statement of fact by the signer, means supported by oath or 

affirmation or made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 4904 relating 

to unsworn falsification to authorities.” See Pa.R.Civ.P. 76. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1 states, in pertinent part, as 

follows:

Rule 1023.1. Scope. Signing of Documents. 

Representations to the Court. Violation

. . . .

(b) Every pleading, written motion, and other paper 

directed to the court shall be signed by at least 

one attorney of record in the attorney’s 

individual name, or, if the party is not 

represented by an attorney, shall be signed 

by the party.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1(b) (emphasis added).
J. S33033/19

- 5 -

A complaint is a legal nullity, void ab initio, when the complaint is not 

signed by the pro se plaintiff and fails to include the essential verification 

statement signed by plaintiff. See Atl. Credit and Finance, Inc. v. 

Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 344 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (holding 

that, the verification requirement is essential to the pleading “because without 

it a pleading is mere narration, and amounts to nothing.”); see also Monroe 

Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa.Super. 

1979) (holding that, non-compliance with the verification requirement will not 

be condoned); Rupel v. Bluestein, 421 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa.Super. 1980) 

(stating that, to hold unexplained and unexcused non-compliance with the 

verification requirement as unimportant would only encourage 

non-compliance by others, and laxity on the part of the lower courts).

Here, the Estate filed preliminary objections to the complaint for failure 

of the complaint to conform to law or rule of court, in the nature of a demurrer 

to all counts, and for insufficient specificity. (Estate’s preliminary objections, 

10/16/18.) In its preliminary objection for failure to conform to law or rule of 

court, the Estate contended that the complaint was filed without a verification

statement signed by appellant. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-28.) The Estate averred that 

Tamara Santarelli, who was not a party to this action, filed the complaint and 

signed appellant’s name, as well as her own name. (Id. at ¶¶ 23, 26.) The 

trial court, noting that appellant failed to appear at the hearing on the matter, 

to argue the merits of his complaint, or to present opposition to the 
J. S33033/19

- 6 -

preliminary objections, sustained the preliminary objections upon finding that 

the Estate’s arguments were valid and legally supported. (Trial court opinion, 

1/22/19 at 2.)

A review of the record reveals that appellant commenced an action 

against the Estate; and on August 17, 2018, a praecipe for writ of summons,

listing appellant as the plaintiff, was issued and served upon the Estate. 

Tamara Santarelli was not listed as a plaintiff on the praecipe. 

Tamara Santarelli signed and filed the complaint, listing herself as co-plaintiff,

and on appellant’s signature line wrote, “Victor James Santarelli III signed 

with his permission by Tamara Santarelli.” (See complaint, 9/28/18.) The 

complaint did not contain a verification statement signed by appellant, and

the complaint was not signed by appellant, as the pro se plaintiff.

The record clearly demonstrates that the complaint failed to conform to 

the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure requiring that the complaint be 

signed by the pro se appellant and contain a verification statement signed by 

appellant. See Rules 1023.1 and 1024. Therefore, we find no error in the 

trial court’s granting of the Estate’s preliminary objection for failure to conform 

to the rules of court. Moreover, because appellant’s complaint is void 

ab initio for failure to include the essential verification statement signed by 

appellant and was not signed by the pro se appellant, we find appellant’s 

other issues moot.

Order affirmed.
J. S33033/19

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/18/2019