Stillwater Lakes Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Nieves
| Decision Date | 31 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2656 C.D. 2010,2656 C.D. 2010 |
| Parties | Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc. v. David Nieves, Lydia Nieves a/k/a Lydia Carrion and Michael Glassic Appeal of: Michael Glassic |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge (P) HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Michael Glassic1 appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (trial court) granting the summary judgment motion of Stillwater Lakes Civic Association (Association) and granting the Association permanent injunctive relief. We affirm.
Glassic owns two units in the Stillwater Lakes Estates, a planned residential community organized under the Uniform Planned Community Act2, that is located in Coolbaugh Township, Monroe County. The Association is a non-profit corporation that manages and administers the common facilities in the development. As a property owner, Glassic is a member of the Association.
On August 7, 2008, Glassic first recorded a meeting of the Association's Board of Directors (Board) without permission. On October 4, 2008, Glassic again videotaped the Board's meeting over the Board's objection. On October 18, 2008, the Board passed a resolution prohibiting the recording and disruption of Board meetings. On November 15, 2008, Glassic again recorded a Board meeting.
On December 17, 2008, the Association filed a complaint in the trial court seeking to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Glassic from video and/or audio recording future Board meetings, and to compel him to delete the prior recordings. On January 28, 2009, Glassic filed preliminary objections to the complaint. By order dated April 20, 2009, the trial court dismissed Glassic's preliminary objections, and directed Glassic to file a responsive pleading within 20 days.
On May 19, 2009, Glassic filed an answer with new matter to the Association's complaint. On June 5, 2009, the Association filed preliminary objections to Glassic's answer. By order dated July 6, 2009, the trial court sustained in part the Association's preliminary objections.3,4 Glassic was deposed on March 10, 2010. See Reproduced Record (RR) at 201-463.
On June 4, 2010, the Association filed a motion for summary judgment in which it alleged, inter alia, that there were no issues of material fact, and that it was entitled to summary judgment, due to admissions made by Glassic during his deposition. See RR at 61-62. On July 2, 2010, Glassic filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment to which he appended some documents that were given to the Association at the deposition. See id. at 33-34.
On August 3, 2010, the trial court issued an order granting the Association's motion for summary judgment. Glassic then filed the instant appeal of the trial court's order.5,6 In this appeal, Glassic claims: (1) the trial court erred in granting the Association's summary judgment motion because the Association failed to first serve him with a cease and desist letter as required by Article III, Section V of its By-Laws7; (2) the trial court erred in granting the Association permanent injunctiverelief because the Association failed to demonstrate that he had violated any provision of a cease and desist letter as required by Article III, Section V of the Association's By-Laws; (3) the trial court erred in granting the Association permanent injunctive relief because there is nothing in the record demonstrating that he violated any covenant or by-law of the Association supporting such relief; (4) the trial court erred in granting the Association permanent injunctive relief because other unit owners continued to record Board meetings and no suit was commenced against the other unit owners; (5) the trial court erred by granting the Association permanent injunctive relief because the Association had imposed and then vacated a fine for his conduct; (6) the trial court erred in determining that there was no genuine issue of material fact; (7) the trial court erred in granting the Association permanent injunctive relief because the Association failed to demonstrate that it was "forced" to commence the instant action as required by Article VI, Section F of its By-Laws8; and (8) the trial court erred in sustaining the Association's preliminary objections to his Answer and New Matter thereby striking any references to either the Association's By-Laws not having been amended or providing Association members the right to record Board or membership meetings.
With regard to the claims of error raised by Glassic in this appeal, we conclude that the trial court thoroughly and correctly analyzed these issues and this matter was ably disposed of in the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Linda Wallach Miller. Accordingly, we affirm9 on the basis of heropinion in Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc. v. David Nieves, Lydia Nieves a/k/a Lydia Carrion and Michael Glassic, (No. 12198 CV 2008, August 3, 2010).
/s/_________
AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2011, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, dated August 3, 2010 at No. 12198 CV 2008, is AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
1. It should be noted that the appellate brief filed by Glassic in this Court does not contain a Statement of Jurisdiction, the Order or Other Determination in Question, or a Summary of Argument as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (6), 2114, 2115, and 2118. As a result, Glassic's appellate brief could be suppressed, and the instant appeal could be quashed or dismissed, pursuant to the provisions of Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Nevertheless, this Court may proceed to dispose of this appeal as the foregoing enumerated defects in Glassic's appellate brief do not preclude effective appellate review. Hatter v. Landsberg, 563 A.2d 146 (Pa. Super. 1989), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 525 Pa. 626, 578 A.2d 414 (1990).
2. 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 5101-5114.
3. More specifically, in its order, the trial court stated that "[a]ny references in the Answer with New Matter regarding either the Bylaws not having been amended or the Bylaws providing Association members with the right to record Board or Membership meetings are stricken with prejudice...." RR at 68. The trial court also directed Glassic to "[a]ttach copies of all referenced writings to his Answer with New Matter and amend Paragraphs 29 and 33 in the Answer to specify how the relevant writings are contrary to the assertions in the Complaint." Id. at 69.
4. On August 5, 2009, Glassic appealed the trial court's order to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. However, by per curiam order dated November 6, 2009, the Superior Court quashed Glassic's appeal.
5. Glassic initially appealed the trial court's order to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. However, by per curiam order dated November 8, 2010, the Superior Court transferred the appeal to this Court.
6. This Court's scope of review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Rieger v. Altoona Area School District, 768 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Summary judgment is properly granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action and the moving party has clearly established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035.2(1); Dunkle v. Middleburg Municipal Authority, 842 A.2d 477 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 580 Pa. 708, 860 A.2d 491 (2004). The record must be viewed in a light most favorable to the opposing party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Id. The entry of summary judgment may only be granted in cases where the right is clear and free from doubt. Rieger.
In addition, when reviewing the grant or denial of a final or permanent injunction, our review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law. Buffalo Township v. Jones, 571 Pa. 637, 813 A.2d 659 (2002). In order to establish a claim for a permanent injunction, a party must establish a clear right to relief. Id. Unlike a claim for a preliminary injunction, the party need not establish irreparable harm or immediate relief. Id. A trial court may issue a final injunction if such relief is necessary to prevent a legal wrong for which there is no adequate redress at law. Id.
7. Article III, Section V of the Association's By-Laws provides, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial