Bank of New York v. Vogel, W. Appeal of: Beltz, T. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A16024-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A. SUCCESSOR TO JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. RAMP 2004-RS3 3232 NEWARK DRIVE MIAMISBURG, OH 45342 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WILLIAM A. VOGEL TODD BELTZ (TENANT) 113 FOUNTAIN AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15205 APPEAL OF: TODD BELTZ Appellant No. 1567 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): No. GD-13-009218 BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MAY 5, 2014 Todd Beltz appeals, pro se, from the order entered September 5, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granting summary judgment in favor of The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association FKA The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. Successor To JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. Ramp 2004-RS3 3232 Newark Drive, Miamisburg, OH 45342 (The Bank), and immediate possession of the premises in J-A16024-14 question, but preventing a lockout for 60 days from the date of the order. lly deficient, we quash this appeal.1 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 requires briefs and reproduced records to conform in all material respects with the rules of appellate procedure. If the failure to conform to the rules is substantial, we may quash or dismiss the appeal. See Cole v. Czegan, 722 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. 1998) (where defects in pro se brief are so substantial that meaningful review is not possible, Superior Court will quash the appeal) (citation omitted). Here, The Bank of New York foreclosed on property owned by William A. Vogel. Todd Beltz and his family were tenants of Vogel. The Bank sought possession of the property, and by the order of September 5, 2013, was granted possession. However, the order also prevented The Bank from ejecting Beltz until 60 days had passed.2 Beltz filed a timely appeal from the grant of summary judgment, but has failed to indicate what errors were committed by the trial court.3 Furthermore, there are also no citations to ____________________________________________ 1 Vogel did not take part in this appeal. 2 We note that ejectment from the residence was further postponed well past the initial 60 days. It is unclear if the Beltz family still occupies the residence. 3 The trial court also noted the difficulty in locating any assignment of See Trial Court (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-A16024-14 the record or to any relevant authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 1119. Because there has been no assignment of error, nor any citations to record or authority, the brief is substantially deficient and leaves this Court with nothing to review.4 As such, we are compelled to quash this appeal. Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/5/2014 (Footnote Continued) _______________________ Opinion, 12/02/2013, at 3. It also appears that Beltz has raised a different argument on appeal than raised before the trial court. 4 him and his family from the residence. -3-
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.
