McSorley, J. v. Paul, J.

J-A28014-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

JOHN F. MCSORLEY, JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JOHN JAMES PAUL : : Appellant : No. 1434 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered May 14, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2021-05278

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and NICHOLS, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 16, 2025

John James Paul appeals from the order entered May 14, 2024, granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of John F. McSorley, Jr., on his complaint in ejectment. Paul argues the trial court erred in finding McSorley pled all elements required for an action in ejectment, that Paul did not admit facts that could be used against him in his pleadings, and there are disputed issues of fact that must be further developed through discovery. We affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned trial court opinion.

Based upon our disposition, a thorough recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary. For a more detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history, we refer to the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion dated July 15, 2024, which we attached hereto. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/24, at 2-4. Briefly, McSorley filed a complaint in ejectment on October 5, 2021,

J-A28014-24

after he was removed from his property at 394 Rutgers Court, Bensalem, Pennsylvania (“the Property”) when both parties cross-filed protection from abuse (“PFA”) petitions. Both PFA petitions were granted. Paul’s PFA order evicted and excluded McSorley from the Property. However, the order included two important notes: (1) the eviction and exclusion provision “is vacated upon [Paul’s] vacating of the residence” and (2) the PFA order “is not a stay for any civil eviction proceedings.” Order, 9/22/21, at ¶¶ 2, 7. McSorley thereafter filed his complaint in ejectment seeking possession of the Property. After preliminary objections, an answer and new matter, and an answer to the new matter, McSorley sought judgment on the pleadings. The court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of McSorley and ordered Paul to vacate the Property within 10 days on May 14, 2024. Paul filed a timely appeal and complied with the court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Paul raises three issues for our review:

[1.] Whether the [c]ourt erred by granting [j]udgment on the [p]leadings in favor of [McSorley] and against [Paul] as [McSorley] has failed to plead all the required elements for an action in ejectment[?]

[2.] Whether the [c]ourt erred by granting [j]udgment on the [p]leadings in favor of [McSorley] and against [Paul] despite the fact that [Paul] has not admitted facts in [his] pleadings which could be considered against [Paul?]

[3.] Whether there are disputed issues of fact which could be considered by a [j]udge or [j]ury and which could further be developed through proper discovery[?]

-2-

J-A28014-24

Appellant’s Brief, at 2 (suggested answers omitted).

The well-established scope and standard of review regarding the grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is as follows:

Our scope of review on an appeal from the grant of judgment on the pleadings is plenary. Entry of judgment on the pleadings is permitted under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034, which provides that “after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Pa.R.C.P. 1034(a). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer. It may be entered when there are no disputed issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining if there is a dispute as to facts, the court must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. On appeal, we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint.

On appeal, our task is to determine whether the trial court’s ruling was based on a clear error of law or whether there were facts disclosed by the pleadings which should properly be tried before a jury or by a judge sitting without a jury.

Neither party can be deemed to have admitted either conclusions of law or unjustified inferences. Moreover, conducting its inquiry, the court should confine itself to the pleadings themselves and any documents or exhibits properly attached to them. It may not consider inadmissible evidence in determining a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Only when the moving party’s case is clear and free from doubt such that a trial would prove fruitless will an appellate court affirm a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., 170 A.3d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted).

After a thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the Honorable Matthew D. Weintraub’s comprehensive opinion dated July 15,

-3-

J-A28014-24

2024, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of McSorley. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/15/24, at 7-16 (holding Paul did not dispute the validity of the deed for the Property, attached to McSorley’s complaint, that established McSorley owned the Property in fee simple, he was a bona fide purchaser, and evidenced his right to possession; Paul did not dispute the validity of the PFA orders attached to McSorley’s complaint that evidenced McSorley was not permitted on the Property unless and until Paul vacated the Property; Paul is actively occupying the Property; and Paul’s financial contributions over 21 years not related to the Property, which was owned for only the last 7 of those 21 years, are irrelevant for determining whether McSorley is entitled to possession of the Property).

For the convenience of the parties, we have attached the well-written and thorough 16-page opinion of the Honorable Matthew D. Weintraub, dated July 15, 2024, filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

Based upon our disposition, we deny as moot McSorley’s motion to quash this appeal.

Order affirmed.

Date: 1/16/2025 -4-

é-Riled Circulated 2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. 01/03/2025 (PA. R.A.P. 11:25 Page 1925(A)), AM 1

No Mo ullish PPublish

IN IN THE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL CIVIL DIVISION DIVISION

JOHN JOHN F.F. MCSORLEY, MCSORLEY, JR., JR., e.s' é SA

Plaintiff/Appellee, Plaintiff/Appellee, No. No. 2021-05278 2021-05278 V.V. 1434 EDA 2024 1434 EDA 2024 fe« ene ·0¥" s JOHN JOHN JAMES JAMES PAUL, PAUL, 9 , Defendant/Appellant. Defendant/Appellant. :

TRIAL TRIAL COURT’S COURT'S 1925(a) 1925(a) OPINION OPINION

John John James James Paul Paul (“Defendant/Appellant’) ("Defendant/Appellant") hereby hereby appeals appeals to to the the

Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania from from the the Order Order issued issued by by the the Bucks Bucks County County

Court Court of of Common Common Pleas Pleas on on May May 14, 14, 2024, 2024, by by the the Honorable Honorable Matthew Matthew D. D. ID 13704619 - JUDGE:45 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary 6n 07/15/2024 2:55 PM,

Weintraub. Weintraub. . The The Order, Order, entered entered inin accordance accordance with with B.C.R.C.P. B.C.R.C.P. 208.3(b), 208.3(b),

granted granted judgment judgment on on the the pleadings pleadings inin favor favor of of John John F.F. McSorley, Mcsorley, Jr, Jr.,

(“Plaintiff/Appellee”) ("Plaintiff/Appellee") inin his his Motion Motion for for Ejectment Ejectment concerning concerning the the property property

located located atat 394 394 Rutgers Rutgers Court, Court, Bensalem, Bensalem, Bucks Bucks County, County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Main (Public) McSorley v. Paul Opinion 7.15.24, Code: 5214, Rept: 22826044

19020 19020 ("the ("the Subject Subject Property”). Property"). Furthermore, Furthermore, itit ordered ordered Appellant Appellant to to vacate vacate

the the premises premises within within aa period period of of ten ten (10) (10) calendar calendar days. days.

No No Motion Motion for for Reconsideration Reconsideration was was filed filed inin this this matter. matter. Subsequently, Subsequently,

on on May May 23, 23, 2024, 2024, Appellant Appellant submitted submitted aa Notice Notice ofof Appeal Appeal concurrently concurrently with with

aa Motion Motion toto Obtain Obtain Supersedeas, Supersedeas, seeking seeking aa stay stay ofof eviction eviction proceedings proceedings

during during the the pendency pendency ofof the the appeal appeal process. process. On On May May 29, 29, 2024, 2024, this this court court

issued issued an an Order Order granting granting the the Motion Motion toto Obtain Obtain Supersedeas S_upersedeas and and directed Case# 2021-05278

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 2 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

Appellant Appellant to to furnish furnish aa Concise Concise Statement Statement of Matters Complained of Matters Complained of of on on

Appeal, Appeal, as as required required by by Pa. Pa. R.A.P. R.A.P. §§ 1925(b). 1925(b). The aforementioned Statement The aforementioned Statement

was was filed filed by by Appellant Appellant on on June June 18, 18, 2024. 2024.

InIn accordance accordance with with Pa. Pa. R.A.P. R.A.P. §§ 1925(a), this trial 1925(a), this trial court now submits court now submits

its its Opinion Opinion as as an an additional additional component component to to the the record, reaffirming its record, reaffirming its

determinations determinations and and prior prior Order. Order.

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

On On October October 5,5, 2021, 2021, Appellee Appellee commenced commenced legal legal proceedings proceedings by by filing filing

aa Complaint Complaint for for Real Real Property Property inin Ejectment. Ejectment. This This filing filing included included exhibits, exhibits,

namely namely aa deed deed asserting asserting sole sole ownership ownership of of the the Subject Subject Property, Property, and and

Protection Protection from from Abuse Abuse Orders Orders (“PFA ("PFA Orders”), Orders"), which which Appellee Appellee contends contends

mandated mandated his his temporary temporary eviction eviction from from the the Subject Subject Property Property from from September September

2021 2021 toto February February 2022. 2022. Subsequently, Subsequently, on on November November 1,1, 2021, 2021, Appellant Appellant

raised raised preliminary preliminary objections objections to to the the Complaint, Complaint, and and on on November November 19, 19, 2021, 2021, dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

Appellee Appellee responded responded with with an an Amended Amended Complaint. Complaint. No No jury jury trial trial was was

requested. requested.

The The pleadings pleadings indicate indicate that that the the parties parties maintained maintained aa domestic domestic

partnership partnership for for approximately approximately twenty-one twenty-one (21) (21) years, years, during during which which they they documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

cohabitated cohabitated atat the the Subject Subject Property Property for for about about seven seven (7) (7) years years until until

September September 22, 22, 2021. 2021. On On that that date, date, both both parties parties were were subject subject toto distinct

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 3 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

cross-filed PFA Orders, cross-filed PFA Orders, each each effective effective until February 20, until February 20, 2022. 2022. Appellant's Appellant’s

PFA PFA Order Order directed directed Appellee Appellee to to vacate vacate the the Subject Property and Subject Property and included included a a

section section which which stated stated “[t]his "[t]his provision provision [would [would be] vacated upon be] vacated upon [Appellant's] [Appellant’s]

vacating vacating of of the the residence.” residence." JJP JJP PFA PFA Order Order 09/22/21, p. 2. 09/22/21, p. 2. Both Both PFA PFA Orders Orders

explicitly explicitly stated stated that that “[t]he "[t]he entry entry of of the the PFAis PFA is NOT NOT aa stay stay on on any any civil civil eviction eviction

proceedings.” proceedings." JFM JFM PFA PFA Order Order 09/22/21, 09/22/21, p.p. 4;4; JJP JJP PFA PFA Order Order 09/22/21, 09/22/21, p.p. 3.3.

This This directive directive means means that that neither neither PFA PFA legally legally restricts restricts or or prevents prevents Appellee’s Appel lee's

instant instant Complaint Complaint for for Real Real Property Property inin Ejectment Ejectment against against Appellant. Appellant.

On On December December 8,8, 2021, 2021, Appellant Appellant filed filed an an Answer Answer with with New New Matter, Matter,

asserting asserting that that his his removal removal from from the the Subject Subject Property Property would would result result inin his his

homelessness homelessness due due to to his his handicap. handicap. Additionally, Additionally, he he claimed claimed that that he he made made

contributions contributions toto increase increase the the property’s property's value value through through repairs, repairs, and and expenses expenses

related related toto tax tax obligations obligations over over the the relationship’s relationship's duration, duration, although although he he

provided provided no no supporting supporting documentation documentation or or narrative narrative account. account. Appellee Appellee dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

submitted submitted an an Answer Answer on on December December 13, 13, 2021. 2021.

On On January January 14, 14, 2022, 2022, Appellee Appellee filed filed aa motion motion for for judgment judgment on on the the

pleadings. pleadings. Appellant Appellant replied replied on on February February 3,3, 2022, 2022, arguing arguing that that Appellee Appel lee had had

not not proven proven ownership ownership of of the the Subject Subject Property Property and, and, therefore, therefore, Appellant Appellant documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

should should maintain maintain immediate immediate possession.

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 4 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

On February On 2024, Appellee February 7,7, 2024, filed aa Praecipe Appellee filed under B.C.R.C.P. Praecipe under B.C.R.C.P.

seeking judgment 208.3(b ), seeking 208.3(b), the pleadings. on the judgment on Briefs were pleadings. Briefs submitted and were submitted and

forwarded the Honorable to the forwarded to D. Weintraub Matthew D. Honorable Matthew on February Weintraub on 2024, for 21, 2024, February 21, for

adjudication. adjudication.

On 14, 2024, May 14, On May on the judgment on 2024, aa judgment pleadings was the pleadings rendered inin favor was rendered favor

Appellant, directing of Appellant, of Appellant's possession directing Appellant’s the Subject possession ofof the Property, and Subject Property, and

Appellee’s from itit within ejectment from Appellee's ejectment (10) days. ten (10) within ten response, on days. InIn response, May 23, on May 23,

Appellant filed 2024, Appellant 2024, Notice ofof Appeal filed aa Notice together with Appeal together Motion toto Obtain with Motion Obtain

Appellee's Response Supersedeas. Appellee’s Supersedeas. Opposition came Response inin Opposition on May came on 28, 2024. May 28, 2024.

Judge Weintraub Judge granted Appellant’s Weintraub granted stay ofof eviction Appellant's stay pending his eviction pending his

appeal on May appeal on 29, 2024. May 29, 2024.

STATEMENT OF STATEMENT ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ERRORS ON APPEAL OF ON COMPLAINED OF APPEAL

On appeal, On Appellant has appeal, Appellant raised the has raised following issues: the following issues:

Court erred The Court 1.1. The granting Judgment by granting erred by the Pleadings on the Judgment on favor ofof Pleadings inin favor dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

Plaintiff (“Appellee”) the Plaintiff the and against ("Appellee") and the Defendant against the ("Appellant") as Defendant (“Appellant”) as

("Appellee") has Plaintiff (“Appellee”) Plaintiff plead all failed toto plead has failed the required all the elements for required elements for

action inin ejectment. an action an ejectment.

Court erred The Court 2.2. The granting Judgment erred byby granting the Pleadings on the Judgment on favor ofof Pleadings inin favor documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

the Plaintiff the ("Appellee") and Plaintiff (“Appellee”) against the and against Defendant (“Appellant”) the Defendant ("Appellant")

the fact despite the despite the Defendant that the fact that ("Appellant") has Defendant (“Appellant”) not admitted has not admitted

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 5 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

facts facts inin their their pleadings pleadings which which could could be considered against be considered against the the

Defendant Defendant (“Appellant”) ("Appellant") by by the the Court Court at this time. at this time.

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION

AA motion motion for for judgment judgment on on the the pleadings, pleadings, as as distinguished from a distinguished from a motion motion

for for summary summary judgment, judgment, isis filed filed at at the the completion completion of of pleadings pleadings and is and is

supported supported solely solely by by the the documents documents filed filed inin accordance accordance with with Pa. Pa. R.C.P. R.C.P. No. No.

1034. 1034. When When adjudicating adjudicating such such aa motion, motion, the the court court isis limited limited to to considering considering

only only the the pleadings pleadings and and answers answers thereto; thereto; affidavits affidavits or or depositions depositions are are not not

admissible, admissible, and and no no additional additional matters matters beyond beyond the the pleadings pleadings are are entertained entertained

by by the the court. court. DiAndrea DiAndrea v.v. Reliance Reliance Sav. Sav. and and Loan Loan Ass’n, Ass'n, 456 456 A.2d A.2d 1066 1066 (Pa. (Pa.

Super. Super. 1983), 1983).

InIn cases cases where where aa motion motion for for judgment judgment on on the the pleadings pleadings isis closely closely

contested, contested, itit isis preferable preferable toto defer defer aa decision decision and and await await the the submission submission of of

affidavits affidavits and and depositions depositions for for more more appropriate appropriate consideration consideration under under aa motion motion dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

for for summary summary judgment. judgment. Del Del Quadro Quadro v.v. City City of of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 437 437 A.2d A.2d 1262 1262

(Pa. 1981).). (Pa. 1981

InIn situations situations where where both both parties parties largely largely agree agree on on the the facts facts of of the the case case

and and only only “strictly "strictly questions questions of of law’ law" remain, remain, where where “there "there [is] [is] no no dispute dispute ofof fact fact documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

toto be be submitted submitted for for determination, determination, the the entry entry of of judgment judgment on on pleadings pleadings [is]

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 6 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

proper.” proper." Shepherd Shepherd v.v. General General Tel. Tel. && Electronics Corp., 190 Electronics Corp., 190 A.2d A.2d 896, 896, 901 901

(Pa. 1962). (Pa. 1962).

1.1. The The court court erred erred byby granting granting Judgment Judgment onon the the Pleadings Pleadings in in favor favor ofof the the Plaintiff Plaintiff (“Appellee”) and against ("Appellee") and against the the Defendant (“Appellant”) as Plaintiff (“Appellee”) has Defendant ("Appellant") as Plaintiff ("Appellee") has failed to failed to plead plead all all the the required required elements elements for for an an action in action in ejectment. ejectment.

Appellant's Appellant's primary primary contention contention concerns concerns the the court’s court's determination determination that that

Appellee Appellee met met all all requisites requisites for for eviction eviction based based solely solely on on the the pleadings, pleadings,

particularly particularly inin light light of of his his disability disability and and alleged alleged sweat sweat equity equity inin the the property property

for for which which he he seeks seeks credit. credit. The The Supreme Supreme Court Court set set forth forth foundational foundational

principles principles for for eviction eviction inin Taylor Taylor v.v. Anderson, Anderson. 234 234 U.S. U.S. 74 74 (1914), (1914), declaring: declaring:

“[t]he "[t]he petition petition alleged alleged that that the the plaintiffs plaintiffs were were owners owners inin fee fee and and entitled entitled to to the the possession; possession; that that the the defendants defendants had had forcibly forcibly taken taken possession possession and and were were wrongfully wrongfully keeping keeping the the plaintiffs plaintiffs out out ofof possession; possession; and and that that the the latter latter were were damaged damaged thereby thereby inin aa sum sum named. named. Nothing Nothing more more waswas required required to to state state aa good good cause cause of of action.” action." dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

This This framework framework was was further further affirmed affirmed by by the the United United States States Court Court of of Appeals Appeals

for for the the Third Third Circuit Circuit inin Lang Lang v.v. Colonial Colonial Pipeline Pipeline Co., Co., 266 266 F.F. Supp. Supp. 552, 552, 556 556

(E.D. (E.D. Pa. Pa. 1967), 1967), aff'd aff'd per per curiam, curiam, 383 383 F.2d F.2d 986 986 (3d (3d Cir. Cir. 1967), 1967), which which

mandates mandates the the essential essential elements elements toto include, include, “(1) "(1) plaintiff's plaintiff's allegations allegations on on their their documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

ownership ownership and and right right toto possession, possession, (2) (2) the the defendant’s defendant's wrongful wrongful possession, possession,

and and (3) (3) the the request request for for relief.” relief."

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 7 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

a. a. Whether Whether Plaintiff Plaintiff (“Appellee”) ("Appellee") asserts asserts his his ownership and right to possession? ownership and right to possession?

Under Under Pa. Pa. R.C.P. R.C.P. Rule Rule 1054, 1054, inin an an ejectment action, "the ejectment action, “the plaintiff plaintiff shall shall

describe describe the the land land inin the the complaint” complaint" upon upon which their claim which their claim isis based. based. The The

description description must must provide provide reasonable reasonable certainty, certainty, “set[ting] forth in "set[ting] forth in the the complaint complaint

or or answer answer an an abstract abstract of of the the title title upon upon which which the the party party relies...” relies ..." Id. lad.

Appellee’s Appel lee's Complaint, Complaint, accompanied accompanied by by “Exhibit "Exhibit A,” A," presents presents aa deed deed

affirming affirming his his fee fee simple simple ownership ownership of of the the property, property, acquired acquired on on October October 31, 31,

2014. 2014. This This deed deed was was duly duly recorded recorded with with the the Bucks Bucks County County Recorder Recorder of of

Deeds Deeds on on November November 6,6, 2014, 2014, under under Instrument Instrument No. No. 2014061697 2014061697 and and

certified certified on on date date of of same. same. The The document document identifies identifies Appellee, Appellee, John John F.F.

McSorley, Mcsorley, Jr, Jr., as as the the sole sole grantee grantee and and owner, owner, signifying signifying the the property’s property's

transfer transfer from from his his predecessor predecessor inin interest interest for for valid valid consideration. consideration. This This deed deed

states: states: dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

To To have have and and toto hold hold the the said said lot lot or or piece piece ofof ground ground described described [below], [below], with with the the buildings buildings and and improvements improvements thereon thereon erected, erected, hereditaments hereditaments and and premises premises hereby hereby granted, granted, or or mentioned mentioned and and intended intended soso toto be, be, with with the the appurtenances, appurtenances, unto unto the the said said Grantee, Grantee, his his heirs heirs and and assigns, assigns, toto and and for for the the only only proper proper use use and and behoof behoof ofof the the said said Grantee, Grantee, his his heirs heirs and and assigns, assigns, forever. forever.

Appellee’s Appellee's predecessor predecessor acquired acquired the the Subject Subject Property Property inin fee fee simple simple documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

from from aa Bucks Bucks County County corporation corporation around around December December 12, 12, 2008, 2008, as as evidenced

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 8 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

by her by recorded deed, her recorded deed, subsequently subsequently transferring this interest transferring this interest to to Appellee Appellee

alone alone with with aa certified certified recording recording of of transfer transfer filed filed on November 6, on November 6, 2014. 2014.

Additionally, Additionally, documentation documentation from from Bucks County Abstract Bucks County Abstract Services, Services,

LLC, LLC, confirms confirms Appellee Appellee as as the the sole sole grantee on the grantee on the deed, deed, with with his his

predecessor predecessor identified identified as as the the sole sole grantor. granter. Appellant Appellant acknowledged acknowledged this this fact, fact,

stating stating that that the the “[deed] "[deed] isis aa document document which which speaks speaks for for itself.” itself." Deft. Deft. Answer Answer

&& New New Matter 7 5.5. Matter []

The The deed deed describes describes the the property property with with reasonable reasonable certainty certainty as as

condominium condominium Unit Unit 392 392 within within Bensalem Bensalem Village, Village, located located at at 394 394 Rutgers Rutgers

Court, Court, Bensalem, Bensalem, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, 19020, 19020, with with Bucks Bucks County County tax tax parcel parcel

number number 02-094-394. 02-094-394. The The Subject Subject Property Property isis situated situated or or “located "located inin

Bensalem Bensalem Township, Township, Bucks Bucks County, County, Commonwealth Commonwealth of of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, and and

specifically specifically atat the the Northwesterly Northwesterly side side of of Bensalem Bensalem Boulevard Boulevard (formerly (formerly

Newportville Newportville Road) Road) and and the the Southwesterly Southwesterly side side of of Byberry Byberry Road.” Road." dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

The The deed deed references references various various focal local publications publications including including the the

Declaration Declaration ofof Condominium, Condominium, Office Office of of the the Recorder Recorder of of Deeds Deeds of of Bucks Bucks

County, County, and and the the Amended Amended Plan Plan ofof Bensalem Bensalem Village, Village, all all corroborating corroborating the the

property’s property's description. description. No No objections objections have have been been raised raised regarding regarding these these documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

documents documents by by Appellant.

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 9 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

Of particular significance Of particular significance isis page page three three (3) (3) of the deed, of the deed, where where all all parties parties

signed signed inin the the presence presence of of aa Notary Notary Public, Public, formalizing formalizing itit on on October October 31, 31, 2014. 2014.

This This page page also also bears bears the the signature signature of of aa witness acting "[o]n witness acting “[o]n behalf behalf of of the the

Grantee.” Grantee."

The The validity validity of of the the deed deed remains remains undisputed undisputed by by either either party. party. Appellant Appellant

has has referenced referenced the the deed deed inin several several filings filings without without challenging challenging Appellee’s Appellee's

ownership ownership status. status. Rather, Rather, Appellant Appellant asserts asserts his his own own claim. claim. Based Based on on the the

evidence evidence from from the the deed deed and and the the parties’ parties' admissions, admissions, there there isis no no dispute dispute

regarding regarding Appellee’s Appellee's ownership ownership of of the the Subject Subject Property Property and, and, consequently, consequently,

his his right right toto possession. possession.

Appellant’s Appellant's contention contention regarding regarding adequacy adequacy of of consideration consideration isis

immaterial immaterial under under established established law, law, which which does does not not scrutinize scrutinize the the amount amount but but

rather rather requires requires some some form form of of consideration. consideration. The The deed deed reflects reflects consideration consideration

of of $159,000.00 $159,000.00 tendered tendered toto the the seller seller by by Appellee, Appellee, confirming confirming its its adequacy. adequacy. dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

b.b. Whether Whether Plaintiff Plaintiff (“Appellee”) ("Appellee") asserts asserts Defendant’s Defendant's (“Appellant’s”) ("Appellant's") wrongful wrongful possession? possession?

Appellant Appellant initially initially contends contends that that his his possession possession ofof the the Subject Subject Property Property

isis not not wrongful, wrongful, while while acknowledging acknowledging exclusive exclusive possession possession under under the the PFA PFA documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

Orders, Orders, stating stating “[t]he "[t]he PFA PFA speaks speaks for for itself’ itself' (citation (citation omitted). omitted). He He attempts attempts toto

substantiate substantiate his his ownership ownership claims claims through through his his property property improvements improvements and and

tax tax payments payments toto establish establish aa constructive constructive contract contract between between Appellee Appellee and and him.

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 10 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

He He asserts generally, that asserts generally, that “[o]ver "[o]ver the the course of his course of his twenty-one-year twenty-one-year

relationship relationship with with [Appellee], [Appellee], [Appellant] [Appellant] paid over $40,000.00 paid over $40,000.00 to to cover cover

household household debts debts and and support support the the property.” property." Brief by Deft. Brief by Deft. In In Opposition Opposition of of

Pitf.’s PItf.'s Motion Motion for for Judgment Judgment on on the the Pleadings Pleadings 02/03/2022, p. 1. 02/03/2022, p. 1. However, However,

these these assertions, assertions, standing standing alone, alone, fail fail to to surmount surmount the the threshold threshold for for entry entry of of

judgment judgment on on the the pleadings, pleadings, particularly particularly when when viewed viewed within within the the broader broader

context. context. This This situation situation isis analogous analogous to to one one inin which which aa lessee lessee contributes contributes to to

maintenance maintenance costs costs throughout throughout his his lease lease term term and and subsequently subsequently makes makes an an

unfounded unfounded claim claim of of ownership ownership over over the the property, property, where where no no such such entitlement entitlement

was was originally originally bargained bargained for. for.

ItIt isis established established that that Appellee Appellee alone alone holds holds fee fee simple simple ownership ownership of of the the

Subject Subject Property Property (see (see above). above). Both Both parties parties acknowledge acknowledge residency residency atat the the

Subject Subject Property Property from from October October 2014 2014 until until the the issuance issuance of of two two PFA PFA Orders Orders on on

September September 22, 22, 2021, 2021, which which expired expired February February 20, 20, 2022. 2022. Motion Motion toto Obtain Obtain dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

Supersedeas 05/29/2024, J,r 11. Supersedeas 05/29/2024, 11. The The pleadings, pleadings, including including the the Complaint, Complaint,

Amended Amended Complaint, Complaint, Answer Answer with with New New Matter, Matter, and and subsequent subsequent responses, responses,

reference reference two two cross-filed cross-filed PFA PFA Orders Orders issued issued on on September September 22, 22, 2021. 2021. The The

Orders Orders ousted ousted Appellee Appellee from from the the property property and and granted granted exclusive exclusive possession possession documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

toto Appellant Appellant until until he he vacated, vacated, which which had had not not occurred occurred atat this this action’s action's

inception, inception, but but which which also also extended extended beyond beyond the the expiration expiration ofof both both PFA PFA Orders. Orders.

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 11 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

One One PFA PFA Order Order explicitly explicitly states, states, “[Appellee "[Appellee is] is] excluded from the excluded from the residence residence

at at 394 394 Rutgers Rutgers Court, Court, Bensalem, Bensalem, PA PA 19020,” 19020," and, “[Appellant] is and, "[Appellant] is granted granted

exclusive exclusive possession possession of of the the residence. residence. [Appellee] shall have [Appellee] shall have no no right right or or

privilege privilege to to enter enter or or be be present present on on the the premises.” JJP PFA premises." JJP PFA Order Order 09/22/21, 09/22/21,

p.p. 2-3. 2-3. ItIt isis overtly overtly stated stated inin the the orders, orders, “[t]his "[t]his provision provision isis vacated vacated upon upon the the

[Appellant's] [Appellant's] vacating vacating of of the the residence,” residence," and and that that “[t]his "[t]his PFA PFA isis not not aa stay stay for for

any any civil civil eviction eviction proceedings.” proceedings." Id. Id.

Appellee Appellee commenced commenced this this action action for for ejectment ejectment of of Appellant Appellant on on October October

5,5, 2021, 2021, with with the the PFA PFA Orders Orders expired expired as as of of February February 20, 20, 2022. 2022. Once Once

Appellant's Appellant's PFA PFA Order Order expired expired against against Appellee, Appellee, itit no no longer longer provided provided any any

legal legal basis basis to to give give Appellant Appellant exclusive exclusive possession possession of of the the Subject Subject Property. Property.

Therefore, Therefore, Appellee Appellee was was free free to to assert assert his his ejectment ejectment claim claim after after that that PFA PFA

expired. expired.

Appellant Appellant seeks seeks damages damages from from Appellee Appellee for for funds funds expended, expended, but but such such dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

claims claims must must be be ascertainable ascertainable or or plausible plausible to to be be credible. credible. While While not not binding, binding,

Courts Courts inin other other states states have have persuasively persuasively found found that that “damages "damages are are

speculative speculative when when the the probability probability that that aa circumstance circumstance as as an an element element ofof

compensation compensation isis conjectural. conjectural. The The rule rule against against recovery recovery of of ‘speculative 'speculative documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

damages’ damages' isis generally generally directed directed against against uncertainty uncertainty as as toto cause cause rather rather than than

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 12 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

uncertainty as uncertainty as to to measure measure or or extent.” extent." Sherrod v. Berry, Sherrod v. Berry, 629 629 F. F. Supp. Supp. 159 159

(N.D. (N.D. Ill. I I. 1985); 1985); Crichfield Crichfield v.v. Julia, Julia. 147 147 F.F. 65, 65, 70-71 (2d Cir. 70-71 (2d Cir. 1906). 1906).

Appellant's Appellant's request request for for damages damages appears appears uncertain both in uncertain both in extent extent and and

cause, cause, particularly particularly given given the the parties’ parties' seven seven (7) year cohabitation, (7) year when cohabitation, when

compared compared to to his his claimed claimed expenditures expenditures spanning spanning over over two two decades. Holding decades. Holding

Appellee Appellee liable liable for for all all payments payments made made by by Appellant Appellant over over aa twenty twenty (20) (20) year year

period period would would result result inin aa form form of of unjust unjust enrichment enrichment conferring conferring an an undue undue

benefit benefit upon upon Appellant. Appellant. The The issue issue of of these these damages damages isis not not merely merely contested contested

or or uncertain uncertain inin terms terms of of measure. measure. Rather, Rather, itit isis implausible implausible or or not not credible credible as as

to to whether whether Appellant's Appellant's claimed claimed damages damages of of $40,000.00 $40,000.00 related related to to the the Subject Subject

Property Property and and for for what what purpose. purpose.

While While Appellant's Appellant's potential potential for for recovery recovery of of substantiated substantiated expenses expenses

incurred incurred inin maintaining maintaining and and improving improving the the subject subject property property inin the the future future isis not not

precluded, precluded, his his current current assertions assertions lack lack the the detail detail necessary necessary toto proceed proceed dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

beyond beyond dismissal dismissal by by judgment judgment on on the the pleadings. pleadings.

c.c. Whether Whether the the prayer prayer for for relief relief and and claim claim adhere adhere to to legal legal standards? standards?

Pursuant Pursuant toto 237 231 Pa. Pa. Rule Rule 3160, 3160, judgement: judgement: execution execution permits, permits, aa documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

plaintiff plaintiff may may seek seek “execution "execution for for such such rents, rents, profits profits or or damages damages shall shall be be inin

accordance accordance with with the the rules rules governing governing the the enforcement enforcement of of judgments judgments for for the the

payment payment ofof money” money" after after eviction. eviction.

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 13 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

Appellee Appellee filed filed aa petition petition which which includes includes aa prayer prayer for for relief relief under under the the

requirements requirements for for ejectment, ejectment, seeking seeking ejectment ejectment itself, reimbursement for itself, reimbursement for legal legal

costs, costs, financial financial compensation compensation due due to to lack lack of of possession, reimbursement of possession, reimbursement of

the the mortgage mortgage payments, payments, utilities, utilities, and and taxes taxes incurred during Appellant's incurred during time Appellant's time

of of exclusive exclusive possession, possession, and and any any other other just just and and equitable equitable relief. relief. Appellant Appellant

has has not not substantively substantively addressed addressed these these prayers prayers for for relief relief beyond beyond contesting contesting

their their validity. validity.

Appellee Appellee has has demonstrated demonstrated that that Appellant Appellant occupies occupies the the Subject Subject

Property Property without without any any established established rental rental agreement, agreement, lease, lease, or or legal legal title. title.

Conspicuously, Conspicuously, Appellant Appellant has has not not claimed claimed any any contribution contribution toward toward the the

property’s property's purchase. purchase. Based Based solely solely on on the the pleadings, pleadings, Appellee Appellee has has sufficiently sufficiently

demonstrated demonstrated grounds grounds for for Appellant's Appellant's ejectment. ejectment.

2.2. The The court court erred erred by by granting granting Judgment Judgment onon the the Pleadings Pleadings inin favor favor of of the the Plaintiff Plaintiff (“Appellee”) ("Appellee") and and against against the the Defendant Defendant (“Appellant”) ("Appellant") despite despite the the fact fact that that the the dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

Defendant Defendant (“Appellant”) ("Appellant") hashas not not admitted admitted facts facts inin their their pleadings pleadings whichwhich could could be be considered considered against against the the Defendant Defendant (“Appellant,”) ("Appellant,") by by the the court court atat this this time. time. Furthermore, Furthermore, there there are are disputed disputed issues issues of of fact fact which which could could bebe considered considered by by aa Judge Judge or or Jury Jury and and which which could could further further be be developed developed through through proper proper discovery. discovery.

Appellant's Appellant's statement statement lacks lacks specificity specificity regarding regarding which which facts facts he he documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

contends contends Appellee Appellee has has not not admitted admitted inin their their pleadings pleadings that that could could be be

considered considered against against him him by by the the court. court. Appellant’s Appellant's ambiguity ambiguity inin this this regard regard

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 14 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

prevents prevents the the court court from from identifying identifying the the disputed issues of disputed issues of fact fact relevant relevant to to

judicial judicial oror jury jury consideration. consideration.

Assuming, Assuming, arguendo, arguendo, Appellant Appellant argues argues his financial contributions his financial contributions as as

proof proof of of ownership ownership require require jury jury deliberation, deliberation, the the temporal scope and temporal scope and purpose purpose

of of these these contributions contributions remain remain unclear. unclear. Whether Whether spanning spanning twenty-one twenty-one (21) (21)

years years or or solely solely seven seven (7) (7) years years of of residency, residency, Appellant’s Appellant's lack lack of of clarity clarity and and

specificity specificity diminishes diminishes their their relevance relevance to to the the current current ejectment. ejectment. Such Such claims claims

may may be be more more appropriately appropriately addressed addressed inin aa separate separate legal legal action action by by

Appellant, Appellant, especially especially since since his his Answer Answer and and New New Matter Matter do do not not assert assert claims claims

for for damages damages that that could could be be substantiated substantiated without without aa contract contract or or clearly clearly

articulated articulated legal legal basis. basis.

While While damages damages typically typically fall fall within within the the jury’s jury's purview, purview, the the absence absence of of

preliminary preliminary substantiation substantiation by by Appellant Appellant regarding regarding expenditures expenditures on on the the

Subject Subject Property Property precludes precludes consideration consideration of of such such claims claims atat this this stage. stage. dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

Appellant Appellant broadly broadly asserts asserts expenditures expenditures totaling totaling $40,000.00 $40,000.00 over over

approximately approximately twenty-one twenty-one (21) (21) years years without without specifying specifying whether whether these these funds funds

were were (1) (1) directed directed towards towards the the Subject Subject Property; Property; or or (2) (2) towards towards previous previous

residences residences jointly jointly occupied occupied by by the the parties parties preceding preceding the the Subject Subject Property’s Property's documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

acquisition; acquisition; or or (3) (3) ifif he he received received any any reciprocal reciprocal compensation; compensation; or or (4) (4) any any

relevant details. relevant details.

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 15 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

essence, Appellant InIn essence, claims expenses Appellant claims throughout his incurred throughout expenses incurred his

with Appellee relationship with relationship as aa defense Appellee as against ejectment. defense against However, these ejectment. However, these

financial contributions alleged financial alleged not aligned are not contributions are with the aligned with damages redressable the damages redressable

current proceedings the current inin the lack support and lack proceedings and or plausibility support or the pleadings. plausibility inin the pleadings.

Since inception of the inception Since the PFA actions, the PFA of the has been Appellant has actions, Appellant aware ofof been aware

intent toto seek Appellee's intent Appellee’s exclusive possession seek exclusive as explicitly possession as provided for explicitly provided for

therein instructing, “[t]he when instructing, therein when the PFA entry ofof the "[the entry NOT aa stay PFA isis NOT any civil on any stay on civil

eviction proceedings.” eviction JFM PFA proceedings." JFM Order 09/22/21, PFA Order Appellant's continued 09/22/21, p.p. 4.4. Appellant's continued

the Subject occupation ofof the occupation owned solely Property owned Subject Property by Appellee solely by after the Appellee after the

the PFA expiration ofof the expiration without either Orders, without PFA Orders, attempting toto resolve either attempting the matter, resolve the matter,

legally contest or legally or Appellee's title, contest Appellee’s support Appellee’s title, support claim inin ejectment. Appellee's claim ejectment.

Despite Appellee’s Despite ample notice Appellee's ample him toto vacate, notice toto him Appellant continues vacate, Appellant continues

toto occupy occupy the the property property without without asserting asserting aa legal legal claim claim toto ownership ownership that that could could

prevent prevent his his ejectment. ejectment. Appellant's Appellant's claim claim that that ejectment ejectment would would cause cause dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

hardship hardship does does not not justify justify his his prolonged prolonged wrongful wrongful possession. possession. Appellant Appellant was was

aware aware ofof Appellee’s Appellee's intent intent toto pursue pursue ejectment, ejectment, as as communicated communicated through through

the the PFA PFA Orders Orders that that legally legally “excluded "excluded [Appellee] [Appellee] from from the the residence residence atat 394 394

Rutgers Rutgers Court.” Court." The The hardships hardships claimed claimed byby Appellant, Appellant, which which he he claims claims will will documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler

arise arise from from potential potential ejectment ejectment and and poor poor health, health, neither neither constitute constitute aa sudden sudden

occurrence occurrence nor nor justify justify delaying delaying this this legal legal action action without without aa valid valid defense. defense.

2021-05278-0034 OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 16 Case# 2021-05278-3B -13004GE 15 Rup GiketbaR Ccainbd aftBimkst? aftBonktary ath 076142 62407/4 5/2 DP F2D5 BONO. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy ivabia4 COaedR éadrd skifiheZAppelate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and

Appellant neither contested has neither Appellant has validity of the validity contested the Appellee's title of Appellee’s nor presented title nor presented

evidence that any evidence any support his would support that would continued occupancy. his continued Considering the occupancy. Considering the

there are pleadings, there pleadings, disputed issues no disputed are no suitable for issues suitable jury consideration for jury consideration

regarding damages, regarding ownership claims, damages, ownership or other claims, or legal defenses. other legal defenses.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

conclusion, the InIn conclusion, trial court’s the trial was rendered Order was court's Order following aa rendered following

comprehensive examination comprehensive the pleadings examination ofof the and the pleadings and corresponding record. the corresponding record.

Appellant has Appellant failed toto establish has failed any substantive establish any grounds warranting substantive grounds warranting

reversal. reversal. Appellant's appeal Therefore, Appellant’s Therefore, be denied, should be appeal should the trial and the denied, and trial

order affirmed. court's order court’s affirmed.

THE COURT, BY THE BY COURT,

Date: 7/sh o» uff 6f:24 ntl MATT WEINTRAUB, J. DLA dfdine(Dolflay MaScide SysteaubOpérias

your resp N.B. ItIt isis your N.B. onsibility responsibility parties ang The panes gare attorneys de theirauch and ha notify allall intere toto notify sted partie interested s parties are directed to refer to and abide by Judge Weintrau Standard Operating Standard b'eProcedures above action . Weintraub's Operating the above ofof the action. at: https://www.buckscounty.gov/2027/ https://w ww.buckscounty.gow/2027/ D-Weintraub Matthew-D-Weintraub Matthew- documents. E-Filed by: Debbie Hubler