Court Opinion

ID: 9894128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 16:11:06.202511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:32.202700
License: Public Domain

J-S23018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  THOMAS W. OLICK,                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  THE ESTATE TO ANDREW OLICK,                  :   No. 15 EDA 2023
  SR.; ANDREW OLICK, JR.; GERALYN              :
  OLICK; VICTORIA (OLICK)                      :
  HALDERMAN; CASANDRA OLICK;                   :
  MARGUERITE DIPPLE; AMANDA                    :
  TOBAR; AND JOHN DOES                         :

             Appeal from the Order Entered September 6, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at
                       No(s): C-48-CV-2020-07740

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

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                         FILED OCTOBER 31, 2023

       Thomas Olick (“Olick”) appeals pro se from the order sustaining the

preliminary objections of the Estate of Andrew Olick, Sr., and others.

(collectively “Appellees”) and dismissing Olick’s amended complaint.1 After

review, we dismiss this appeal.

       Because we resolve this appeal on procedural errors, a detailed factual

history is not necessary. Briefly, this matter originated in 2017 with a will

____________________________________________

1 The trial court observed that Olick filed three Complaints, all titled Amended

Complaint. Trial Court Opinion, 9/6/22, at 5. The amended complaints were
filed in September 2021, May 2022, and June 2022; all essentially made the
same claims, though the latter two were more detailed. Id. The trial court
noted that its decision on the preliminary objections effectively addressed all
three complaints since they were virtually identical. Id.
J-S23018-23

contest that Olick filed in Broward County, Florida, against the estate of Robert

F. Browne.     In 2018, Olick and Andrew Olick, Sr., executor of the Browne

Estate, entered into a settlement agreement for Olick’s claims, awarding Olick

$50,000 and a Mariner statue. In May 2021, a Florida judge determined that

the settlement agreement had been fully satisfied.

       In July 2021, Olick filed a notice of claim against the Estate of Andrew

Olick, Sr., also in Broward County Florida, claiming he was owed an additional

$100,000 plus $24,000 in interest from the Browne Estate based on Andrew

Olick, Sr.’s breach of the settlement agreement. In September 2021, Olick

also filed a complaint against the Appellees in Northampton County,

Pennsylvania, alleging claims related to a breach of the settlement

agreement.2

       The Appellees filed preliminary objections in the nature of demurrer on

numerous grounds, including collateral estoppel and the pendency of a prior

action (lis pendens). After Olick filed two amended complaints which were

virtually identical to the first Amended Complaint, on September 3, 2022, the

____________________________________________

2 We note that Olick claims in his brief that he initiated an action in
Pennsylvania in December 2020, and that he amended his complaint after the
death of Andrew Olick, Sr. However, Olick did not file a reproduced record
and a document from December 2020 does not appear in the record in this
case.

                                           -2-
J-S23018-23

trial court ultimately sustained the preliminary objections for collateral

estoppel and lis pendens and dismissed Olick’s action with prejudice.3

       Olick filed this timely appeal.4          Olick filed a Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure 1925(b) statement and a supplement; the trial court

submitted its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

       In this opinion, the trial court suggests that Olick’s appeal should be

dismissed because he failed to comply with Rule 1925(b). The court indicated

that Olick’s “statement is frivolous, confusing and far from concise.”        Trial

Court Opinion, 1/27/23, at 3.

       The Appellees also claim that Olick’s appeal should be dismissed for

failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Appellees’ Brief at 9. Specifically, they argue that Olick’s brief is formatted

incorrectly, several required components are missing, and the statement of

questions involved is incoherent; most critically, they state that Olick failed to

develop any legal arguments in support of the errors complained of on appeal.

Id. at 10. Additionally, they note that Olick failed to file a reproduced record,

which is required of all appellants. Id. at 9.

____________________________________________

3 Because it sustained the preliminary objections for collateral estoppel and lis

pendens, the court did not address the remaining objections for legal
insufficiency, gist of the action, punitive damages, the motion to strike for
failure to conform to law or rule of court, the failure to attach the settlement
agreement, and lack of personal jurisdiction against some of the Appellees.

4 Olick originally filed this appeal with the Commonwealth Court, which
transferred it to us.

                                           -3-
J-S23018-23

      Upon review of Olick’s Rule 1925(b) statement, we agree with the trial

court that it is woefully noncompliant.     Where the trial court directs the

appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, Rule

1925(b) provides that the statement shall “set forth only those errors that the

appellant intends to assert ... [and] ... concisely identify each error that the

appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be

raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i), (ii) (emphasis added). Olick’s

purported 1925(b) statement and supplement are not specific and fail to set

forth, cogently, any issues to be addressed.         Further, a Rule 1925(b)

statement should only identify the errors made by the trial court; it should not

be a lengthy narrative of facts, procedural history, explanations, or arguments

as Olick provides here in nearly 30 pages. See Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv).

“‘Our law makes it clear that Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not satisfied by simply filing

any statement. Rather, the statement must be “concise” and coherent so as

to permit the trial court to understand the specific issues being raised on

appeal.’” Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1150 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(quoting Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa. Super. 2007)).

      In addition to filing a noncompliant 1925(b) statement, Olick filed an

appellate brief that fails to comply with several appellate rules. Initially, we

observe that appellate briefs must conform in all material respects to the

briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See also id. at 2114–2119 (addressing specific

requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal). “[I]t is an appellant's

                                      -4-
J-S23018-23

duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The

brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the

record and with citations to legal authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy,

918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citation omitted). This court

may quash or dismiss an appeal where the appellant presents the Court with

a defective brief or reproduced record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

       Under Rule 2116, a brief must begin with a statement of the questions

involved.5 Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a).         Like the 1925(b) statement, it “must state

concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in the terms and circumstances

of the case but without unnecessary detail.” Id. Here, Olick’s statement of

questions involved does not set forth concisely any questions regarding

specific errors he claimed the trial court made.

       Under Rule 2111 (a)(3), Olick does not identify the correct scope and

standard of review that an appellate court uses when reviewing an order

sustaining preliminary objections.

       Additionally, an appellant must provide a legal argument for each

question, which should include a discussion and citation of pertinent

authorities. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). In the argument section of his brief, Olick

____________________________________________

5 Ideally, this statement of issues will mirror the 1925 (b) errors complained

of on appeal and will identify 2-3 issues (and no more than 5), for the appellate
court to review. The statement may contain fewer issues than the 1925(b)
statement; after an appellant has reviewed the trial courts 1925(a) opinion,
the appellant may choose to forego some issues on appeal. However, any
issues identified in the statement of issues that were not included in the
1925(b) statement are waived, for failure to raise them below.

                                           -5-
J-S23018-23

fails to develop any meaningful legal argument or analysis.          Other than

general references to Pennsylvania and Florida statutes and the U.S.

Constitution, he does not cite any relevant legal authority to support his

arguments. He provides no legal analysis to persuade us that the trial court

erred in sustaining the preliminary objections based on collateral estoppel and

lis pendens.    Instead, much of his brief recites his version of the facts,

criticizes the procedure followed in Florida, and, with sweeping conclusions,

reiterates that his claims of $100,000 and $24,000 in interest against the

Browne Estate are valid and not covered by the settlement agreement. He

also discusses whether some of the Appellees are subject to jurisdiction in

Pennsylvania, which the trial court did not use as a basis to dismiss his most

recent amended complaint.

      Finally, Olick failed to provide a reproduced record in accordance with

the appellate Rules. Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2152, 2186.

      We recognize that Olick’s non-compliance may be due to his pro se

status. However, this Court has consistently held that such status does not

excuse an appellant from compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

      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. A pro se litigant must comply with the
      procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania rules of the Court.
      Any layperson choosing to represent himself or herself in a legal
      proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that
      his or her lack of expertise and legal training will prove his or her
      undoing.

                                      -6-
J-S23018-23

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

2021 (cleaned up). Moreover, this Court cannot act as Olick’s counsel.6 See

id.

       Olick’s failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure has

irreparably hampered our ability to review this matter. His arguments are

incoherent and a rambling mess.            Accordingly, Olick has waived appellate

review of any challenge to the trial court’s order sustaining the Appellees’

preliminary objections and dismissing his complaint. Consequently, we will

exercise our discretion under Rule 2101 to dismiss Olick’s appeal.

       Further, we note that Appellees requested sanctions, based on Olick’s

filing of this appeal. They contend that the appeal is frivolous, and that Olick

has acted in a vindictively litigious and vexatious manner. Appellees’ Brief at

23.

       Rule 2744 empowers an appellate court to grant reasonable attorneys’

fees “if it determines that an appeal is frivolous or taken solely for delay or

that the conduct of the participant against whom costs are to be imposed is

____________________________________________

6 We note that after Olick received the Appellees’ brief, criticizing his lack of

compliance with the appellate rules, he filed a motion for clarification, asking
this Court to identify and explain which rules he failed to follow and to give
him an opportunity to file an amended brief and reproduced record. This we
cannot do. Thus, in our order of June 12, 2023, we denied these requests.
Nonetheless, Olick attempted to file an amended brief and reproduced record.
We grant the Appellees’ motion to strike these documents, and we have not
considered them in rendering this decision, other than to note that Olick states
his non-compliance with the rules was due to his cancer diagnosis. While we
sympathize with his condition, as a neutral arbiter, we cannot excuse his
failure to follow the rules on this basis.

                                           -7-
J-S23018-23

dilatory, obdurate or vexatious.”      Pa.R.A.P. 2744.     In determining the

propriety of such an award, we are guided by the principle that an appeal is

not frivolous simply because it lacks merit[; r]ather, it must be found that the

appeal has no basis in law or fact.” U.S. Claims, Inc. v. Dougherty, 914

A.2d 874, 878 (Pa. Super. 2006) (imposing sanctions pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

2744 based upon pro se appellant’s undeveloped arguments on appeal and

“total inability to produce any evidence” to support his claims).       In such

instances, this Court returns the case to the trial court for computation of an

appropriate award. Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Druzisky, 800 A.2d 955, 958 (Pa.

Super. 2002); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2744.

      Here, it appears that Olick was unhappy with the results of his Florida

lawsuit and decided to try again in Pennsylvania, forcing the Appellees to fight

a legal battle in two states. Despite the Pennsylvania trial judge dismissing

his case on this basis, he nonetheless pursued this appeal. But this is more

than just an appeal that has no merit.

      Olick’s verbose and incomprehensible documents and his complete

failure to follow the rules and orders in this case render this appeal frivolous.

Olick’s failure to abide by any court rules forced the Appellees to spend time

and money answering numerous repetitive and baseless documents and

preparing a reproduced record, because Olick did not.         Moreover, Olick’s

failure to abide by this Court’s order prohibiting him from filing an amended

brief and reproduced record forced the Appellees to file a motion to strike

these documents. We therefore grant the Appellees’ request for attorneys’

                                      -8-
J-S23018-23

fees and costs relating to this appeal. We remand for further proceedings for

the trial court to calculate and impose an award of reasonable counsel fees

and costs incurred by the Appellees in defending this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.

2744.

        Motion to strike extraneous filings granted. Appeal dismissed. Order

affirmed.    Motion for sanctions granted.   Case remanded for proceedings

consistent with this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 10/31/2023

                                     -9-