Diefenderfer v. Wieand (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A29003-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MURIEL DIEFENDERFER AND RICHARD DIEFENDERFER, HER HUSBAND IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. GARY A. WIEAND, JR., AND CHRISTOPHER R. SHALA Appellee No. 707 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered February 3, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2007-7453 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. Filed: January 3, 2013 Appellants, Muriel Diefenderfer and Richard Diefenderfer, her husband, appeal from the order entered February 3, 2012, by the Honorable Edward G. Smith, Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, which entered Summary Judgment in favor of Appellees, Gary A. Wieand, Jr., and Christopher R. Shala. We affirm. For a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case, we direct the reader to Judge Smith s memorandum opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/3/12, at 1-3. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A29003-12 On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in Appellees favor. Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is as follows: In evaluating the trial court's decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. The rule states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered.... [W]e will view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. PECO, 54 A.3d 921, 925 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). As our inquiry involves solely questions of law, our review is de novo. Catlin v. Hamburg, --- A.3d ---, 2012 WL 5286226 at *4 (Pa. Super., filed Oct. 26, 2012) (citation omitted). With our standard of review in mind, and after examining the briefs of the parties, the ruling of the trial court, as well as the applicable law, we find that Judge Smith s ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error. We further find that the trial court ably and methodically addressed Appellants issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Smith s thorough and well-written opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/3/12. 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.
