Gray v. Bridgeford (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A29024-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 T. BARRY GRAY AND PATRICIA GRAY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. ORLANDO BRIDGEFORD, ABIGAIL BRIDGEFORD AND BRIDGEFORD REAL ESTATE, LLC T. BARRY GRAY AND PATRICIA GRAY v. STUART WINNIG, ABIGAIL BRIDGEFORD, ORLANDO BRIDGEFORD, BRIDGEFORD REAL ESTATE, LLC, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND URDEN LAW OFFICES No. 292 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Order Entered December 29, 2010 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 00830 Sept. Term 2009 03248 June Term & BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. Filed: March 1, 2013 Appellants, T. Barry Gray and Patricia Gray, appeal from the order entered on December 29, 2010, by the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. After careful review, we affirm. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A29024-12 A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary, as we write solely for the parties. However, for a succinct summary we refer the reader to this court s opinion in Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829, 831-833 (Pa. Super. 2012). As in Gray, we are without the benefit of Appellants 1925(b) statements and similarly conclude that we can review only those issues documented in the trial court s opinion. See Gray, 53 A.3d at 833, n. 2. Furthermore, after reviewing that opinion, the memoranda decisions resolving the Grays appeals at 102 EDA 2012, 103 EDA 2012, and 104 EDA 2012, and the certified record in this case, we conclude that this appeal arises from the same legal dispute at issue in all of those separate appeals; namely, the foreclosure of the Grays property in Philadelphia and subsequent eviction proceedings. Our review leads us to agree with Judge Bender s description of the history of this case as marked by needlessly protracted litigation occasioned principally by the Grays unwillingness to abide by any of the strictures imposed by the system they have invoked[.] Gray v. Buonopane, 103 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super., November 27, 2012). We similarly conclude that Judge Tereshko s opinion thoroughly addresses the issues raised by the Grays in this appeal, and we therefore adopt the opinion as our own. We therefore affirm the order of the trial court. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
