Court Opinion

ID: 9651130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:08:41.825135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:27.701899
License: Public Domain

J-A14002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 G.V. HOMES, INC.                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 STEVE A. FREMPONG AND AGNES              :
 FREMPONG                                 :
                                          :   No. 2511 EDA 2022
                    Appellants            :

             Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 3, 2022
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                     Civil Division at No(s): 190800206

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                          FILED AUGUST 23, 2023

      Steve A. Frempong and Agnes Frempong appeal, pro se, from the

judgment entered against them and in favor of G.V. Homes, Inc., in this

ejectment action. After the Frempongs failed to pay taxes on a piece of

property they owned in Philadelphia, G.V. Homes purchased the property

through a tax lien sale. The Frempongs now challenge the trial court’s finding

that G.V. Homes has the right to possess the property. After review, we affirm.

      In the Frempongs’ prior appeal in this matter, we summarized the

relevant factual and procedural history as follows:

            This case involves an extensive and meandering procedural
      history,   including   appeals   to    both    the   Pennsylvania
      Commonwealth Court and this Court. Briefly, the Frempongs were
      the owners of property located in the city and county of
      Philadelphia. The Frempongs failed to pay real estate taxes for the
      property for several years. See Complaint, 8/6/19, Exhibit A
      (indicating that taxes on the property had been delinquent since
J-A14002-23

      2002). In 2015, the City of Philadelphia filed a petition for rule to
      show cause why the property should not be sold free and clear
      from all liens, and in March 2016, the trial court authorized a real
      estate tax lien sale on the property. G.V. Homes purchased the
      property through the tax lien sale on December 19, 2017.

             The Frempongs refused to vacate the property or permit
      G.V. Homes to enter the property, and ultimately, G.V. Homes
      filed a complaint in ejectment and trespass on August 5, 2019.
      Additional litigation ensued.

            The trial court conducted a bench trial on March 17, 2021,
      after which the trial court found in favor of G.V. Homes and
      awarded G.V. Homes possession of the property. The Frempongs
      subsequently filed a motion for post-trial relief requesting that the
      court dismiss the ejectment action, set aside the verdict, or
      conduct a new trial; the trial court denied the motion. Additionally,
      upon praecipe of G.V. Homes, the trial court issued a writ of
      possession. …

G.V. Homes, Inc. v. Frempong, 285 A.3d 940, 1236 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super.

filed Sept. 21, 2022) (unpublished memorandum at 1-3) (footnotes omitted).

      The Frempongs filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of

their post-trial motion. Because a final judgment had not been entered on the

docket, this Court quashed the Frempongs’ appeal. See id. (unpublished

memorandum at 3). While the appeal was pending, the Frempongs filed an

emergency motion for stay of eviction, which this Court denied.

      The Frempongs also filed a “motion for preliminary injunction” on the

same date they filed their first appeal. The trial court considered the motion

as a request for a stay and denied the motion. On appeal, this Court concluded

the issue was precluded by the law of the case doctrine because we addressed

the claim, i.e., the motion to stay, during the Frempongs’ first appeal. See

                                      -2-
J-A14002-23

G.V. Homes, Inc. v. Frempong, 281 A.3d 1073, 1577 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super.

filed June 16, 2022) (unpublished memorandum).

       On October 3, 2022, the Frempongs filed a praecipe for entry of the

judgment against them, and judgment was entered on the docket on the same

date. The instant appeal followed.1

       The Frempongs identify four claims in their appellate brief, each of which

principally challenges the trial court’s finding in favor of G.V. Homes in the

ejectment action. The Frempongs repeatedly argue that the trial court lacked

authority to authorize the tax lien sale in March 2016, and therefore, any title

G.V. Homes acquired through the sale was void.2

       When addressing nonjury trial verdicts, this Court’s standard of review

is deferential to the trial court:

       Our appellate role in cases arising from nonjury trial verdicts is to
       determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by
____________________________________________

1 G.V. Homes filed an application to quash the Frempongs’ appeal, which this

Court denied without prejudice. G.V. Homes did not file a brief in this matter.

2 The Frempongs also allege that notice and service of the underlying tax
petition were defective and that they had not exhausted their right to redeem
the property. The Frempongs raised these claims in previous Commonwealth
Court appeals. See City of Philadelphia v. Frempong, 227 A.3d 973, 68
C.D. 2019 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed Apr. 24, 2020) (unpublished memorandum)
(regarding redemption and ability to pay); City of Philadelphia v.
Frempong, 196 A.3d 282, 959 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed Sept. 19, 2018)
(unpublished memorandum) (wherein the Frempongs alleged defects in notice
and service of the tax petition). Throughout its opinion in the instant matter,
the trial court referenced the Frempongs’ repeated attempts to raise these
issues despite the court’s reminders that it would only consider evidence
pertaining to the issue of ejectment. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/23, at 5-
13.

                                           -3-
J-A14002-23

      competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error
      in any application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial judge
      must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict
      of the jury. We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to
      the verdict winner. We will reverse the trial court only if its findings
      of fact are not supported by competent evidence in the record or
      if its findings are premised on an error of law. However, where the
      issue concerns a question of law, our scope of review is plenary.

Gamesa Energy USA, LLC v. Ten Penn Ctr. Assocs., L.P., 181 A.3d 1188,

1191 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation, brackets, and ellipses omitted).

      “Ejectment is a possessory action only, and can succeed only if the

plaintiff is out of possession, and if he has a present right to immediate

possession.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Long, 934 A.2d 76, 79 (Pa. Super.

2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). As this Court has explained,

      [T]o prevail in an ejectment action, the plaintiff must show title at
      the commencement of the action and can recover, if at all, only
      on the strength of his own title, not because of weakness or
      deficiency of title in the defendant. If a plaintiff in ejectment has
      presented at trial prima facie evidence that it has title to the
      property at issue, the burden then shifts to the defendant, unless
      the plaintiff’s proof necessarily defeats the plaintiff’s claim of title.
      Conversely, if the plaintiff’s claimed chain of title is faulty, the
      plaintiff has not shown a prima facie case, and the plaintiff’s
      ejectment case fails. …

Becker v. Wishard, 202 A.3d 718, 722 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citations,

quotation marks, and footnote omitted).

      Here, after a bench trial, the trial court concluded G.V. Homes

established its superior right of possession. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/23,

at 5. After purchasing the property at the tax lien sale, G.V. Homes “acquired

fee simple legal title to the Property by [Sheriff’s] Deed dated January 25,

                                        -4-
J-A14002-23

2018, and recorded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on February 23, 2018, in

Deed Book No. 1708, Writ No. 2012, Document ID No. 53331428.” Id. G.V.

Homes produced the certified and recorded deed at trial, which provided prima

facie evidence of its chain of title and right of possession. See id.; see also

Complaint, 8/6/19, Exhibit A (certified sheriff’s deed transferring property to

G.V. Homes and transfer tax certification), B (title report); N.T., 3/17/21, at

22 (wherein a copy of the certified sheriff’s deed was admitted into evidence

during the nonjury trial).

      Upon review, we conclude the trial court’s findings are supported by

competent evidence. Further, we find no error in the trial court’s legal

conclusion that G.V. Homes offered prima facie evidence of its superior title

to the property. See Dunn v. Milanovich, 152 A. 757, 758 (Pa. 1930) (“[A]

prima facie right is always sufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover, until and

unless a better title is shown to exist in favor of the adverse party.”). Our

review of the transcripts from the nonjury trial also confirms that the

Frempongs failed to introduce evidence to defeat G.V. Homes’s claim or to

otherwise establish their right to possession. Therefore, the Frempongs’ claims

merit no relief.

      Judgment affirmed.

                                      -5-
J-A14002-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/23/2023

                          -6-