Court Opinion

ID: 9368995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 17:08:35.370927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.089354
License: Public Domain

J-S04032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    SHEILA NELSON-COLE                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appelant                :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    BANK OF AMERICA, LOUELLA GRAY              :   No. 2550 EDA 2022
    AND CHRISTINE SHUR                         :

                Appeal from the Order Entered August 29, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                              No(s): 210901087

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                         FILED FEBRUARY 7, 2023

        Sheila Nelson-Cole (Nelson-Cole) appeals pro se an order of the Court

of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) granting the preliminary

objections of Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) and dismissing Nelson-Cole’s

second amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

        On September 15, 2021, Nelson-Cole filed an initial complaint,

ostensibly against BOA and its two employees, Louella Gray and Christine

Shur,1 each of whom had assisted in BOA’s processing of Nelson-Cole’s

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1Although Gray and Shur appear in the caption of this appeal, they were never
served by Nelson-Cole in this matter and never entered appearances. This
precluded Gray and Shur from becoming parties to the action. See generally
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S04032-23

mortgage applications on October 21, 2020, and December 11, 2020.

According to Nelson-Cole, her applications were denied despite a strong credit

score because BOA and its two employees had racially discriminated against

her. Nelson-Cole disputed BOA’s stated reasons for denying the applications

(insufficient funds and delinquent accounts).    She sought damages in the

amount of $15,000 from BOA and $10,000 each from Gray and Shur.

       The trial court recognized Nelson-Cole’s valid service of process as to

BOA, but found that Gray and Shur had not been served. On October 22,

2021, BOA filed preliminary objections to Nelson-Cole’s initial complaint,

arguing that that Nelson-Cole’s claim of “discrimination” did not comport with

several procedural rules, including Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019 (requiring claims to be

pleaded with sufficient specificity; Pa.R.Civ.P. 1020 (requiring each cause of

action to be pleaded in a separate count); and Pa.R.Civ.P. 1022 (requiring

each factual allegation to be pleaded separately in consecutively numbered

paragraphs).

       Nelson-Cole filed an answer in opposition to the preliminary objections

on November 12, 2021. On November 29, 2021, the trial court entered an

order sustaining BOA’s preliminary objections without prejudice, allowing

____________________________________________

Hill v. Olaf, 85 A.3d 540, 546 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2014). The order on review is,
therefore, a final order because it resolves all claims and issues concerning
the only named defendant in the underlying action – BOA.

                                           -2-
J-S04032-23

Nelson-Cole to amend her complaint within 20 days of the date on which the

order was entered. Notice of this order was given on November 30, 2021.

      Nelson-Cole’s amended complaint was not filed until March 28, 2022,

which was well beyond the deadline ordered by the trial court. The title of

Nelson-Cole’s filing was “Amended Complaint of Preliminary Objections —

Defendant.” The amended complaint only conveyed Nelson-Cole’s responses

to BOA’s initial preliminary objections.    Nelson-Cole stated that she was

“asking for an amendment of the Defendants Preliminary Objections” and she

argued once more that BOA had offered no valid reason for the denial of her

two mortgage applications.

      On May 31, 2022, BOA filed preliminary objections to Nelson-Cole’s

amended complaint and sought in the alternative to have the amended

complaint stricken. BOA contended that the amended complaint was deficient

because it lacked a notice to defend; it did not include any allegations of fact;

no discernable cause of action had been asserted against BOA; and it was

untimely.

      Nelson-Cole did not respond to BOA’s second set of preliminary

objections, and on June 30, 2022, the trial court entered an order sustaining

those preliminary objections and striking the amended complaint. Nelson-

Cole was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 20 days of

the date of that order so that the deficiencies noted in the trial court’s prior

orders could be corrected.     On July 19, 2022, Nelson-Cole timely filed a

                                      -3-
J-S04032-23

“Second Amendment of Defendants Preliminary Objections” which, in

substance, was only a request for reconsideration of the trial court’s prior

orders.

      On August 5, 2022, BOA filed preliminary objections for the third and

final time, arguing that Nelson-Cole had not remedied any of the defects in

her most recent “complaint,” warranting its dismissal with prejudice. Nelson-

Cole did not file a response, and on August 29, 2022, this final set of

preliminary objections was sustained.         Nelson-Cole’s second amended

complaint was then dismissed with prejudice.

      Nelson-Cole timely appealed the dismissal order, and the trial court

submitted a 1925(a) opinion giving its reasons why the order should be

upheld. See Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 10/6/2022, at 6-12. The trial court

noted that Nelson-Cole had, after multiple attempts, been unable to correct

the many procedural defects in her pleadings.

      Further, even when liberally construing Nelson’s second amended

complaint, the trial court was unable to discern a viable cause of action. See

id. at 8-9.   The trial court explained that under the Pennsylvania Human

Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 954 (PHRA), the complaint would have had to be filed

within 180 days of the act of discrimination, and Nelson-Cole’s initial complaint

was filed well beyond that period.

      Nelson-Cole has filed an appellate brief which reiterates the underlying

claim that BOA, through Gray and Shur, denied her mortgage applications for

                                      -4-
J-S04032-23

racially motivated reasons. Nowhere in her brief does Nelson-Cole identify

how the trial court erred in determining that her second amended complaint

had to be dismissed because of her failure to comport with the Pennsylvania

Rules of Civil Procedure.

          BOA responds that the trial court’s order should stand for all of the

reasons previously given in its preliminary objections and in the trial court’s

1925(a) opinion. Additionally, BOA asserts that the content of Nelson-Cole’s

brief does not satisfy many technical and substantive requirements of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, resulting in a complete waiver of

all Nelson-Cole’s appellate claims.

          The “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.” Haun v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 14 A.3d

120, 123 (Pa. Super. 2011). An order dismissing a complaint with prejudice

must be affirmed where there is no doubt that further amendments would be

futile:

          Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal
          sufficiency of the complaint.       When considering preliminary
          objections, all material facts set forth in the challenged pleadings
          are admitted as true, as well as all inferences reasonably
          deducible therefrom.       Preliminary objections which seek the
          dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases in
          which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable
          to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to relief. If

                                          -5-
J-S04032-23

      any doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, it
      should be resolved in favor of overruling the preliminary
      objections.

Id. (quoting Hykes v. Hughes, 835 A.2d 382, 383 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

      “Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state; a complaint must not only give

the defendant notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon

which it rests, but the complaint must also formulate the issues by

summarizing those facts essential to support the claim.” Foster v. UPMC

South Side Hosp., 2 A.3d 655, 666 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Lerner v.

Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

      Courts will generally excuse a pro se litigant’s “inartful” drafting of

claims, but a liberal construction of a complaint is only availing when the

causes of action can be discerned. See Moore v. McComsey, 459 A.2d 841,

842 (Pa. Super. 1983). A pro se litigant must still “comply with the procedural

rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court . . . and assume the risk

that . . . her lack of expertise and legal training will prove . . . her undoing.”

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

2021) (internal citations omitted).

      Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Nelson-

Cole’s second amended complaint with prejudice. Nelson-Cole made three

attempts to assert her claims against BOA, Gray, and Shur, and even after

the numerous defects in her claims had been identified, Nelson-Cole was

unwilling or unable to state any legally sufficient grounds against those

                                      -6-
J-S04032-23

parties. Nor did Nelson-Cole make any attempt to cure the procedural defects

enumerated by the trial court. This left no doubt that further amendments

would have been futile.

      We also find merit in BOA’s assertion that Nelson-Cole’s brief falls short

of the standards outlined in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Numerous required sections of the brief are missing, as is a reproduced record.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2114(a)(1)-(8). The brief lacks any discussion of relevant facts

or legal authority, preventing this Court from reviewing the merits of Nelson-

Cole’s case in a meaningful way. See Smithson, 264 A.3d at 760. “When

issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when briefs are wholly

inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the

merits thereof.”   Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa. Super. 2000)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Drew, 510 A.2d 1244, 1245 (Pa. Super. 1986)).

Thus, no relief is due.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/7/2023

                                     -7-