U.S. Bank N.A. v. Manu
| Decision Date | 22 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 864 C.D. 2018,864 C.D. 2018 |
| Citation | 207 A.3d 415 |
| Parties | U.S. BANK N.A. v. Agnes MANU and Steve A. Frempong, Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Agnes Manu and Steve A. Frempong, pro se.
Scott H. Brandt, Philadelphia, for appellee.
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge, HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY
Agnes Manu (Manu) and Steve A. Frempong (Frempong) (collectively, Appellants) appeal, pro se, from the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court's (trial court) May 17, 2018 order granting their Motion to Redeem Premises (Motion) for the real property located at 5528 Crowson Street in Philadelphia (Property), ordering a redemption payment and scheduling a hearing (May 17, 2018 Order).1 Essentially, Appellants present two issues for this Court's review: (1) whether the trial court's order was final and appealable, and (2) whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in adjudicating the Motion.2 Upon review, we affirm.
Manu and F.A. Properties Corporation own the Property, and Frempong is Manu's husband and guarantor of the mortgages on the Property. See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 28a-29a, 37a, 39a, 41a. On November 30, 2010, U.S. Bank N.A. (US Bank) filed a tax claim petition against interested parties, including Appellants, seeking payment of the Property's delinquent real estate taxes and a rule to show cause why the Property should not be sold free and clear of all liens and encumbrances (Tax Claim Petition).3 See Original Record (O.R.) Item 2 (Tax Claim Petition). The trial court conducted the rule returnable hearing on October 8, 2014.4 Because Appellants presented no evidence to support their opposition to the Tax Claim Petition, and the trial court found their arguments unpersuasive, the trial court issued an order declaring US Bank's damages to be $13,239.52 (calculated as of October 1, 2014) and granting US Bank permission to sell the Property at sheriff's sale.5 See O.R. Item 54.
On August 7, 2017, US Bank served a notice on Appellants scheduling the sheriff's sale of the Property for September 7, 2017. See O.R. Item 65. By November 8, 2017 order, the September 7, 2017 sheriff's sale was continued until December 7, 2017. See O.R. Item 66. By December 18, 2017 order, the December 7, 2017 sheriff's sale was continued until January 11, 2018. See O.R. Item 67. On January 11, 2018, the Property was sold at sheriff's sale to Golden Developers, LLC for $23,500.00. See R.R. at 17a. Golden Developers, LLC paid a $2,500.00 deposit on January 11, 2018. See R.R. at 114a.
On January 19, 2018, Appellants filed the Motion, wherein Appellants sought redemption of the Property and claimed they were "ready and able to ... pay [ ] the bid or purchase price plus 10% of said price and all incidental expenses as required under [Section 32 of the act generally known as the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act (Act)6 ]." R.R. at 29a; see also R.R. at 26a-41a. Appellants further requested the trial court to order the sheriff to stay the sale proceedings during the redemption process, direct Golden Developers, LLC to stay away from the Property/the tenant, and allow Appellants to prove their ability to pay the redemption costs. See R.R. at 29a.
On February 5, 2018, Golden Developers, LLC intervened and opposed the Motion based on Appellants' ability and readiness to pay.7 See R.R. at 42a-53a. Golden Developers, LLC admitted that the sheriff's deed had not yet been acknowledged when the Motion was filed.8 See R.R. at 45a. On February 9, 2018, Golden Developers, LLC paid the $21,000.00 balance on its purchase. See R.R. at 114a. On February 16, 2018, the trial court issued a rule to Golden Developers, LLC to show cause why Appellants' Motion should not be granted. See R.R. at 17a. The trial court's rule was returnable at a March 22, 2018 hearing, which was ultimately postponed until May 16, 2018. See R.R. at 18a. On April 4, 2018, Appellants filed an answer with new matter to Golden Developers, LLC's response.9 See R.R. at 54a-71a.
On April 18, 2018, Queensgate Properties LLC (Queensgate), filed a petition to intervene (Intervention Petition), wherein it represented that Golden Developers, LLC assigned its rights in the Property to Queensgate for $23,500.00, and that "[Queensgate] has paid all sums due the Sheriff ... and has been delivered a Sheriff's Deed for the Property" which it attached to the Intervention Petition. R.R. at 74a; see also R.R. at 77a-82a. The deed was acknowledged on February 14, 2018 and recorded on March 1, 2018. See R.R. at 77a-79a.
Queensgate also filed a response to Appellants' Motion, making the same argument previously made by Golden Developers, LLC. See R.R. at 84a-92a. On May 11, 2018, Appellants opposed Queensgate's Intervention Petition, claiming that Queensgate was not the successful sheriff's sale bidder and was "a fraudulent deed acquirer." R.R. at 102a; see also R.R. at 100a-104a. On May 16, 2018, Appellants filed a motion to strike or set aside Queensgate's deed because the Motion was filed before the deed was acknowledged and transferred to Queensgate. See R.R. at 105a-109a.
A hearing was conducted on May 16, 2018. See R.R. at 110a-116a. At the hearing, Queensgate's counsel represented that Queensgate was Golden Developers, LLC's assignee and agreed to redemption if Appellants had the funds readily available within 30 days. See R.R. at 113a. Frempong represented that Appellants could have the funds within 30 days, but the Court offered them 60 days (until July 11, 2018) to obtain the money.
By three separate orders entered/docketed on May 17, 2018, the trial court denied Appellants' motion to strike or set aside the deed (see Appellants' Br. Attachment 2),10 granted Queensgate's Intervention Petition (see Appellants' Br. Attachment 1) and granted Appellants' Motion. See R.R. at 21a-22a; see also Appellants' Br. Attachments 1-3. The May 17, 2018 Order declared:
May 17, 2018 Order; Appellants' Br. Attachment 3 (emphasis added). On June 18, 2018, Appellants appealed from the May 17, 2018 Order to this Court.12
The trial court filed its opinion on July 24, 2018. See Appellants' Br. Attachment 4. On August 27, 2018, this Court issued an order stating that, upon review of the May 17, 2018 Order "concluding that [A]ppellants met two of the three requirements for redemption of the [P]roperty ... and scheduling a hearing regarding [A]ppellants' payment of the redemption amount[,]" and August 27, 2018 Order. "This Court's order directing the parties to address whether the trial court's order is appealable implicates this Court's jurisdiction." In re Sheriff's Excess Proceeds Litig. , 98 A.3d 706, 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
Initially, pursuant to Rule 341(a), "an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a ... trial court."13 Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). Rule 341(b) states that "[a] final order is any order that: (1) disposes of all claims and all parties, or ... (3) is entered as a final order pursuant to paragraph (c) of this [R]ule." Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). Rule 341(c) permits an immediate appeal from an order dismissing less than all claims if the trial court determines that an immediate appeal would facilitate the case's resolution. Ultimately, "[i]n ascertaining what is a final order, this Court must look beyond the technical effect of the order to its practical ramifications." Kramer v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Upper Saucon Twp. , 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 559, 641 A.2d 685, 686 (1994).
Relative to the Motion, Section 32(b) of the Act provides:
Any person entitled to redeem may present his petition to the proper court, setting forth the facts, and his readiness to pay the redemption money; whereupon the court shall grant a rule to show cause why the purchaser should not reconvey to him the premises sold; and if, upon hearing, the court shall be satisfied of the facts, it shall make the rule absolute, and upon payment being made or tendered, shall enforce it by attachment .
53 P.S. § 7293(b) (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the May 17, 2018 Order "which on the surface granted redemption subject to payment of [a] certain sum was a denial of the [Motion, and] precluded [Appellants] from presenting the merits of their claim to the [t]rial [c]ourt and[, thus,] said [May 17, 2018] Order constitute[d] a final order[.]" Appellants' Br. at 14. Specifically, Appellants aver that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial