Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Bowes](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10810568/sanchez-a-v-abouelsaad-a/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Sanchez, A. v. Abouelsaad, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1192 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Bowes

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Mary Janes Bowes](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8225/mary-janes-bowes/)

J-A03003-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ALICIA SANCHEZ : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ANGA NOUNIR ABOUELSAAD AND : No. 1192 EDA 2025
NADA ADEL ABDELKHALEK :

Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 10, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at
No(s): C-48-CV-2023-00934

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED MARCH 18, 2026

Alicia Sanchez appeals from the judgment entered on the non-jury

verdict in her favor of on a claim for unjust enrichment, but in favor of Anga

Nounir Abouelsaad and Nada Adel Abdelkhalek on Sanchez’s ejectment claim.

We affirm.

Given our disposition, we do not recount the history of this case in detail.

Briefly, Carlos Ignacio Sanchez (“Decedent”) was married to Abouelsaad, and

had four adult children, including Sanchez, from prior relationships. Decedent

owned a property in Easton, Pennsylvania (“the property”). After he died in

2022, Abouelsaad continued to reside in the property with her daughter,

Abdelkhalek.

---

• Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A03003-26

In January 2023, Sanchez recorded a photocopy of a deed purporting to

convey the property to Sanchez. She then initiated this action to remove

Abouelsaad and Abdelkhalek from the property and recover the value of their

use of the property. Abouelsaad claimed that the deed was forged and sought

punitive damages and counsel fees. The matter proceeded to a non-jury trial,

featuring the testimony of the parties, Decedent’s other children, competing

handwriting experts, and a police detective who investigated the allegations

of forgery.

Ultimately, the court found that the deed was forged, such that Sanchez

was not entitled to possession of the property. However, the court did not

find that it was Sanchez who created the forgery or that she acted in bad faith,

thus it declined to grant Abouelsaad fees or punitive damages. Further, the

court concluded that Abouelsaad had been unjustly enriched by residing at the

property without paying the outstanding mortgage or expenses related to it.

Accordingly, it awarded Sanchez the amount she had paid for the property’s

maintenance.

This timely appeal followed.1 The trial court ordered Sanchez to file a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, and she timely

---

1 A series of procedural irregularities followed the entry of the court’s verdict.

The premature entry of judgment leading to a prior appeal that this Court
quashed, this Court’s ordering reinstatement of the parties’ rights to file post-
trial motions on remand, and a premature appeal from the denial of those
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-2-
J-A03003-26

responded.2 Sanchez raises two claims of error in this Court: (1) “The [trial]

court erred in declaring the deed invalid as a forgery and in denying the

plaintiff’s post-trial motion[;]” and (2) “The [trial] court erred by not awarding

the plaintiff unjust enrichment damages based on the fair market value of the

property.”3 Sanchez’s brief at i.4

Our standard of review of the non-jury verdict requires us to “determine

whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence

and whether the trial judge committed error in the application of law.”

Odedeyi v. Wells Fargo Bank, 319 A.3d 610, 612 (Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned

---

motions prior to entry of judgment on the verdict, it has been a circuitous
journey to this resolution of this matter.

2 We remind the trial court that Rule 1925(b) orders must indicate the
addresses to which the statement may be mailed and hand delivered, and
provide notice that failure to comply with the order “shall,” not “may,” result
in waiver. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iii)-(iv).

3 Sanchez also submitted a will for probate that named her as executor and

sole heir, and Abouelsaad challenged the authenticity of that document as
well. The orphans’ court heard that matter simultaneously with the instant
ejectment action and likewise found the will to have been forged. It therefore
declared Decedent to have died intestate, granted Abouelsaad her spousal
share of the estate, and declared Sanchez and her three siblings were each
entitled to one-eighth shares. Sanchez appealed and leveled challenges
similar to those raised herein, which this Court rejected, affirming the court’s
finding that Abouelsaad had proven forgery by clear and convincing evidence.
See In re Estate of Sanchez, 348 A.3d 722, 2025 WL 2631586 (Pa.Super.
2025) (non-precedential decision).

4 We have taken these issues from the table of contents of Sanchez’s brief as

second issue appears to have been inadvertently omitted from her statement
of questions. See Sanchez’s brief at 2.

-3-
J-A03003-26

up). “Additionally, findings of the trial judge in a non-jury case must be given

the same weight and effect on appeal as a verdict of a jury and will not be

disturbed absent error of law or abuse of discretion.” Id. (cleaned up).

Upon review of the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and the certified

record, and we affirm the judgment on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion

that Honorable Michael J. Koury, Jr., entered on October 29, 2024.

Specifically, as for the claim of forgery, Judge Koury thoroughly reviewed the

trial evidence, properly acknowledged the applicable law and burden of proof,

and thoughtfully explained his reasons for crediting Abouelsaad’s clear and

convincing evidence while finding Sanchez and her expert incredible. See

Trial Court Opinion, 10/29/24, at 11-27. Accord Estate of Sanchez, 2025

WL 2631586, at *13 (holding that Judge Koury’s assessment of the witnesses

and his finding that Decedent’s will was a forgery was supported by the

record).

Further, since Sanchez was not the sole owner of the property, and

indeed Abouelsaad held a substantially greater interest in Decedent’s estate

than she, the trial court reasonably declined to find that Abouelsaad had

unjustly retained the full fair market rental value of the property, instead

relying upon the amount of Sanchez’s out of pocket expenses to assess the

value of the benefit Sanchez had conferred. See Trial Court Opinion,

10/29/24, at 27-28.

-4-
J-A03003-26

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s verdict was supported by

competent evidence and reflected no error of law, and affirm the judgment on

the basis of its October 29, 2024 opinion, which the parties shall attach hereto

in the event of further proceedings.

Judgment affirmed.

Date: 3/18/2026

-5-