Wells Fargo v. Premier Hotels

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS THE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED PENNSYLVANIA HOLDERS OF THE GE BUSINESS LOAN TRUST CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-2

Appellee v.

PREMIER HOTELS GROUP, LLC

Appellant No. 941 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County

Civil Division at No(s): 2015-05776

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 10, 2017

I respectfully dissent. The absence of a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Premier’s issues on appeal is neither fatal to our review nor necessary for quashal or dismissal, and thus, we need not remand to the trial court for the preparation of such.

A proper grant of summary judgment depends upon an evidentiary record that either: (1) shows the material facts are undisputed or (2) contains insufficient evidence of facts to make out a [prima facie] cause of action or defense. See Creazzo v. Medtronic, Inc., 903 A.2d 24, 28 (Pa. Super. 2006). On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, the issue of whether there are genuine disputes of material fact presents a question of law, reviewed de novo; appellate scope of review, to the extent necessary to resolve the legal question, is plenary. Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. Super. 2007). Further, the meaning of an unambiguous written instrument presents a question of law for resolution by the court, and is subject to de novo review. See Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker, 801 A.2d 1212, n.1 (Pa. Super. 2002).

Here, Wells Fargo avers that “there exist[s] a valid promissory note signed by the maker; (2) there remains a balance due on the [promissory note]; and (3) demand on [Premier] for payment has been made and refused, leaving [Premier] in default.” Brief of Appellee, at 10 (emphasis added). Premier does not dispute that it is a signatory to the promissory note or that it is in default, and thus, it has not raised a genuine dispute of a material fact.1

Accordingly, the absence of a Rule 1925(a) opinion does not preclude our review of the record, which contains the unambiguous promissory note at issue.2 Therefore, if we deem it appropriate to reach the merits of Premier’s claim, we need not rely on the reasoned basis provided by the trial court in a Rule 1925(a) opinion; this would be true even if the trial court had filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Cooke v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 723 A.2d 723 (Pa. Super. 1993) (reasoning of trial court was not crucial to determination of interpretation of written instrument where trial court failed to comply with Rule 1925(a)).3