Court Opinion

ID: 9398522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 16:10:58.143393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.160737
License: Public Domain

J-A09008-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 ROBERT L. PAULETTA                        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant              :
                                           :
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 ACNB BANK                                 :   No. 949 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered June 17, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
                    Civil Division at No(s): 2022-00716

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                            FILED: MAY 31, 2023

      Robert L. Pauletta appeals, pro se, from the order dismissing his

complaint with prejudice and barring Pauletta from filing further pro se

litigation regarding the same issues against ACNB Bank. Pauletta’s complaint

alleged that ACNB Bank improperly caused him to lose certain real properties

and income streams. Despite his prior involvement in extensive litigation

against ACNB Bank and related parties in two counties, Pauletta argues that

the instant matter involves distinct causes of action and therefore, the trial

court improperly dismissed his complaint. After careful review, we affirm.

      The meager record in this case provides little clarity concerning the

factual and procedural history of this matter. We have discerned the following,

albeit brief, details from our review of the trial court’s opinion and decisions

rendered by this Court relating to Pauletta’s previous litigation. Pauletta is the
J-A09008-23

sole member of Ream Properties, LLC (“Ream”). See Ream Properties, LLC

v. Hamilton, 185 A.3d 1107, 323 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 12, 2018)

(unpublished memorandum at 1). “In April 2008, Ream entered into an

agreement with Thomas and Theresa Hamilton (“the Hamiltons”) to acquire,

rehabilitate, and resell real properties located in Dauphin County.” Id. At some

point, the business relationship began to sour, and the parties became

embroiled in litigation in both Dauphin and Cumberland Counties.

                        The Cumberland County Case

             The claims in the Cumberland County case stem from a
      $125,000 line of credit made by [ANCB Bank] to Ream … in May
      2011, repayment of which was guaranteed by [Pauletta] in a
      Commercial Guaranty Agreement…. [The line of credit was
      secured by the Hamiltons, who mortgaged their personal
      residence as collateral in agreements limited to the pledge of the
      Hamiltons’ Property.] In November 2012, Judgment was entered
      by confession in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas in the
      amount of $99,799.72, against Ream … as borrower and
      [Pauletta] as guarantor, and was later transferred to Cumberland
      County. As part of the litigation, the Cumberland County case also
      included an examination of the propriety of the Assignment of
      Note, Mortgage, Guaranty and Judgments from [ACNB Bank] to
      [the Hamiltons]…. The court in the Cumberland County case held
      that the assignment of the loan was neither prohibited by the
      Commercial Guaranty Agreement, nor was it executed in bad
      faith. Finally, in response to the appeal, [the trial court] issued a
      1925(a) opinion, which among other things, explained that the
      Commercial Guaranty Agreement explicitly gave [ACNB Bank] “an
      unrestricted right to freely assign the Guaranty without notice or
      demand to [Pauletta]” and stated that there was no violation of
      any duty of good faith or fair dealing. [This Court] confirmed the
      judgment and dismissed [Pauletta’s] appeal.

                          The Dauphin County Case

            In the Dauphin County case, [Pauletta], acting pro se, filed
      an action against [ACNB Bank] seeking an amount exceeding one

                                      -2-
J-A09008-23

       hundred million dollars. The Dauphin County case involved,
       among other things, [ACNB Bank] striking down a default
       judgment that [Pauletta] had improperly obtained against it. Most
       importantly to this case, [Pauletta] repeated his claims related to
       the Assignment in the Dauphin County case, which ultimately
       resulted in the granting of [ACNB Bank’s] Preliminary Objection
       and a dismissal of the case with prejudice. … [The trial court]
       stated in a Memorandum Opinion and Order that “regardless of
       how [] Pauletta tries to characterize it,” the issue in this case was
       “whether or not it was improper for the Bank to assign the Line of
       Credit and the confessed judgments to [the Hamiltons]. …
       [Pauletta] never filed an appeal.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/12/22, at 2-3 (footnotes and some capitalization and

brackets omitted); ACNB Bank v. Ream Properties, LLC, 181 A.3d 422,

1063 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 16, 2017) (unpublished memorandum).

       In the instant matter, on January 27, 2022, Pauletta filed a complaint

against ACNB Bank. Pauletta identified nine causes of action,1 each of which

related to the line of credit and the assignment of loan documents from ACNB

Bank to the Hamiltons. Pauletta sought compensatory damages totaling $1

million for the loss of the properties and approximately $1.7 million for loss of

income from the properties. He also requested “treble damages for

$8,131,801.41 for the loss of the properties and loss of the past and future

income from the properties and mental duress.” Complaint, 1/27/22, ¶ 67.

____________________________________________

1 The causes of action include conversion, concerted tortious conduct, aiding
and abetting partial assignment of judgment, aiding and abetting
unenforceable negotiable instrument, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting professional malpractice, tortious interference of a
business relationship, aiding and abetting negligence, and intentional infliction
of emotional distress.

                                           -3-
J-A09008-23

        In response, ACNB Bank filed preliminary objections for failure to join

Ream as a necessary party and general failure to comply with the

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. ACNB Bank also filed a motion to

dismiss frivolous complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 asserting that the

underlying issues had previously been litigated.

        Pauletta filed pro se responses, in which he appeared to assert that by

identifying an assortment of “aiding and abetting” causes of action, he raised

distinct claims that had not previously been addressed. See Response to

Motion to Dismiss Frivolous Complaint, 3/7/22, ¶¶ 2-4. He additionally argued

his attorney breached his fiduciary duty because “he had a borrowing

relationship with ACNB Bank and a close personal relationship with the bank’s

president and would do nothing to alienate these relationships.” Id., ¶ 4; see

also Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Brief in Support of Motion to

Dismiss Frivolous Complaint, 4/22/22, at 1-2 (arguing his attorney’s

involvement constitutes “new evidence”).

        By an order dated June 15, 2022,2 the trial court granted ACNB Bank’s

motion to dismiss frivolous complaint, dismissed Pauletta’s complaint with

prejudice, and barred Pauletta

        from filing any further pro se litigation against Defendant ACNB
        Bank, its employees, or agents, relating in any way to the matters
        addressed in the Complaint, including without limitation the Line
        of Credit from ACNB Bank to Ream Properties, LLC and the

____________________________________________

2   The order was docketed on June 17, 2022.

                                           -4-
J-A09008-23

      assignment of the loan documents relating to the Line of Credit
      and judgments thereon to Theresa and Thomas Hamilton.

Order, 6/17/22.

      Pauletta filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. In his concise

statement, Pauletta identified two claims related to the application of Rule

233.1, as well as a claim that the trial court failed to consider new evidence.

      Preliminarily, we observe that Pauletta’s pro se brief fails to comply with

several of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111

(identifying the necessary components of an appellant’s brief), 2114

(Statement of Jurisdiction), 2115 (Order or Other Determination in Question),

2116 (Statement of Questions Involved), 2117 (Statement of the Case).

“Although this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se

litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant.”

Smithson v. Columbia Gas of PA/NiSource, 264 A.3d 755, 760 (Pa. Super.

2021) (citation and brackets omitted). We could deem Pauletta’s issues

waived on this basis.

      Nevertheless, we will address the trial court’s grant of ACNB Bank’s

motion to dismiss frivolous appeal. From what we can discern from his brief,

Pauletta argues that 1) his complaint asserted causes of action distinct from

the Dauphin and Cumberland County cases, and therefore the trial court

improperly dismissed his complaint; and 2) he raised new evidence about his

                                      -5-
J-A09008-23

attorney’s involvement in the transfer of mortgage documents to the

Hamiltons. See Appellant’s Brief at 4-6.3

       “To the extent that the question presented involves interpretation of

rules of civil procedure, our standard of review is de novo. To the extent that

this question involves an exercise of the trial court’s discretion in granting a

motion to dismiss, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.” Coulter v.

Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1086 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation, quotation marks,

and brackets omitted).

       When interpreting and applying our procedural rules, we must “ascertain

and effectuate the intention of the Supreme Court.” Pa.R.C.P. 127(a). We

therefore turn to the relevant portion of Rule 233.1:

       Rule 233.1. Frivolous Litigation. Pro Se Plaintiff. Motion to
       Dismiss

       (a) Upon the commencement of any action filed by a pro se
       plaintiff in the court of common pleas, a defendant may file a
       motion to dismiss the action on the basis that

          (1) the pro se plaintiff is alleging the same or related claims
          which the pro se plaintiff raised in a prior action against the
          same or related defendants, and

          (2) these claims have already been resolved pursuant to a
          written settlement agreement or a court proceeding.

                                          ***
____________________________________________

3 Pauletta also includes a brief argument concerning intentional infliction of
emotional distress. See Appellant’s Brief at 7. However, this issue was not
raised in his Rule 1925(b) concise statement and is therefore waived. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (providing that “[i]ssues not included in the
Statement … are waived.”).

                                           -6-
J-A09008-23

      (c) Upon granting the motion and dismissing the action, the court
      may bar the pro se plaintiff from pursuing additional pro se
      litigation against the same or related defendants raising the same
      or related claims without leave of court.

Pa.R.C.P. 233.1(a), (c).

      As this Court has explained, “Rule 233.1 was promulgated by our

Supreme Court in 2010 to stem a noted increase in serial lawsuits of dubious

merit filed by pro se litigants disaffected by prior failures to secure relief for

injuries they perceived but could not substantiate.” Gray v. Buonopane, 53

A.3d 829, 835 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 Comment). Moreover,

      neither the language of the Rule nor the explanatory comment
      mandate the technical identity of parties or claims imposed by res
      judicata or collateral estoppel; rather, it merely requires that the
      parties and the claims raised in the current action be “related” to
      those in the prior action and that those prior claims have been
      “resolved.” These two terms are noteworthy in their omission of
      the technical precision otherwise associated with claim and issue
      preclusion; whereas parties and/or claims are to be “identical”
      under the purview of those doctrines, Rule 233.1 requires only
      that they be sufficiently related to inform the trial court, in the
      exercise of its discretion, whether the plaintiff’s claim has in fact
      been considered and “resolved.”

Gray, 53 A.3d at 835 (citation omitted).

      Here, the trial court addressed Pauletta’s claim and concluded that ACNB

Bank sufficiently established the requirements under Rule 233.1. See Trial

Court Opinion, 8/12/22, at 5-9. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion. As

summarized above, Pauletta has litigated issues concerning the line of credit

and its assignment to the Hamiltons in two different counties against ACNB

                                      -7-
J-A09008-23

Bank and related parties. In the Cumberland and Dauphin County cases, the

issues were resolved by a final court order.

      Moreover, Pauletta’s claim that the addition of the “aiding and abetting”

claims constitute new evidence or distinct causes of action does not allow him

to circumvent Rule 233.1. As the trial court aptly noted, the claims raised by

Pauletta in the instant case are closely related to those previously litigated.

See id. at 8; see also Gray, 53 A.3d at 835 (explaining that the causes of

action and parties involved need not be identical for purposes of Rule 233.1).

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that

Pauletta’s claims are rationally related to those previously considered and

resolved. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Pauletta’s complaint

with prejudice and barred Pauletta from filing further pro se litigation under

Rule 233.1.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 05/31/2023

                                     -8-