Ponoco Manor Investors v. Slane, B. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A21027-21 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 POCONO MANOR INVESTORS, LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. BENEDICT SLANE AND MICHELE FRAKT, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 187 EDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entered November 16, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s): No. 2019-03395 BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2021 Appellants Benedict Slane and Michele Frakt appeal from the order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Appellee, Pocono Manor Investments, LP.1 Appellants contend that genuine issues of material fact remain, and the trial court erred or abused its discretion in granting judgment on the pleadings. Following our review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s November 16, 2020 opinion. Briefly, we summarize the relevant facts and procedural history of this matter as follows. On May 1, 2019, Appellee filed a complaint against ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. The order granting Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was a final and appealable order as it disposed of all claims and all parties. Pa.R.A.P. 341(a), (b)(1). 1 J-A21027-21 Appellants alleging that Appellee owns the common areas, improvements, utilities, and roadways within the private planned community of Pocono Manor, and that Appellee reserved the right to develop water and sewer lines within the community. Appellants reside within this planned community, and Appellees claimed that problems with the sewer lines occurred at the beginning of 2019, which required maintenance. However, Appellee contends that Appellants barred it from entering the property to repair the leaking sewer lines. Appellee’s complaint sought to confirm Appellee’s easement on the property. On May 1, 2019, Appellee filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking permission to enter Appellants’ properties to perform the sewer repairs. The trial court concluded that there was immediate and irreparable harm that would occur if the sewer leak was not repaired, and the trial court ordered that Appellee could enter the property to make the repairs. On June 10, 2019, Appellants filed their answer with new matter and counterclaims in response to Appellee’s complaint. In the counterclaims, Appellants alleged breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellee filed preliminary objections to the counterclaims, and on September 26, 2019, the trial court sustained, in part, and overruled, in part, Appellee’s preliminary objections, and the court permitted Appellants twenty days in which to amend their pleadings. Appellants next filed their first amended answer, new matter, and counterclaims. In response, Appellee filed preliminary objections. On January -2- J-A21027-21 27, 2020, the trial court denied Appellee’s preliminary objections to Appellants’ new matter, and it granted Appellee’s preliminary objections to Appellants’ counterclaims. Appellants then filed their second amended answer, new matter, and counterclaims. In response, Appellee filed preliminary objections. On April 27, 2020, the trial court sustained Appellee’s preliminary objections with respect to Appellant Frakt’s counterclaims concerning breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the trial court overruled the preliminary objections in part, and Appellant Slane’s counterclaim for breach of contract remained. On September 29, 2020, Appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The next day, the trial court ordered the parties to file briefs regarding Appellee’s motion. On November 16, 2020, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissed all of Appellant’s counterclaims in their entirety, granted Appellees an easement over Appellants’ properties to operate, maintain, and repair sewer lines, and permanently enjoined Appellants from interfering with Appellee’s operation, maintenance, and repair of the sewer lines. Appellants filed a timely appeal. Both the trial court and Appellants complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.2 ____________________________________________ On January 4, 2021, the trial court directed Appellants to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236, the order was entered on the docket on January 5, 2021. The order required Appellant to file the Rule 1925(b) statement within twenty-one days. However, it also provided that 2 (Footnote Continued Next Page) -3- J-A21027-21 Appellants raise the following issues: 1. Did the court below err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellants’ new matter and counterclaims? 2. Did the court below err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion in granting Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings? Appellants’ Brief at 4 (some formatting altered). We review Appellants’ issues pursuant to the following standard: 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. Appellate review of an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is plenary. The appellate court will apply the same standard employed by the trial court. A trial court must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. The court must accept as true all well pleaded statements of fact, admissions, and any documents properly attached to the pleadings presented by the party against whom the motion is filed, considering only those facts which were specifically admitted. We will affirm the grant of such a motion only when the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise. ____________________________________________ service would be complete upon mailing if Appellants obtained a United States Postal Service (USPS) form 3817 in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1112(c). Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) statement was docketed on February 3, 2021, however, Appellants included a USPS form 3817, which was dated January 25, 2021. Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) statement was timely. -4- J-A21027-21 Kote v. Bank of New York, 169 A.3d 1103, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 182 A.3d 434 (Pa. 2018). Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the trial court’s well-reasoned analysis, we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the November 16, 2020 order granting Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 11/16/20, at 1-5. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 11/19/2021 -5- Circulated 10/27/2021 04:18 PM

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.