J-S05038-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CRAIG W. IRVINE

v.

SHAHNAWAZ M. MATHIAS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1076 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered July 21, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 

2019-SU-003009

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 14, 2022

Appellant, Shahnawaz M. Mathias, appeals from the July 21, 2021 Order 

entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas granting the Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Appellee, Craig W. Irvine, in this ejectment 

action. After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. Appellant’s 

now deceased parents granted him a life estate in the residential real property

located at 70 Vista Drive, Red Lion, Windsor Township in York County (the 

“Property”). Appellant has admitted that he owed $250,283 in unpaid real 

estate taxes on the Property through 2017.1

On June 6, 2019, Appellee successfully purchased the Property at a York 

County Judicial Tax Sale. The York County Tax Bureau issued a deed to 

____________________________________________

1 See Emergency Motion for Stay, 6/1/18, at filed at Docket No. 2018-TU000003.
J-S05038-22

- 2 -

Appellee and recorded the deed in the Office of Recorder of Deeds for York 

County. 

On August 6, 2019, Appellant filed a timely petition seeking to have the 

judicial tax sale set aside (“Set Aside Petition”) at a separate lower court 

docket number.

2

 On January 15, 2020, the trial court held a bench trial on 

Appellant’s petition, after which it denied the petition on January 19, 2021. 

Appellant’s appeal from this order is currently pending in the Commonwealth 

Court.

3

 Appellant did not post a supersedeas with the trial court pending 

disposition of his appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1733. 

Meanwhile, on October 3, 2019, Appellee filed the instant action seeking 

to eject Appellant from the Property. 

On April 14, 2021, Appellant filed an Answer to the ejectment complaint 

and New Matter.4 In the Answer and New Matter, Appellant asserted that his 

by-then-pending appeal from the trial court’s denial of his Set Aside Petition 

rendered Appellee without valid title to the Property and that the federal 

eviction moratorium and federal and or state orders preventing evictions due 

____________________________________________

2 See Docket No. 2019-TU-000006.

3 See Shahnawaz M. Mathias v. York County Tax Claim Bureau and 

Craig W. Irvine, No. 714 CD 2021.

4 The almost 18-month delay in filing an Answer and New Matter appears to 

have been a result of an agreement between the parties to extend the time 

for Appellant to file an Answer to the Complaint pending the outcome of the 

proceedings on his Set Aside Petition.
J-S05038-22

- 3 -

to the COVID-19 pandemic barred Appellee’s claims. Answer, 4/14/21, at 3. 

Appellant also raised a counterclaim for Unjust Enrichment. Id. at 4.

Appellee filed a response to Appellant’s New Matter and, on April 30, 

2021, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In the Motion, Appellee posited

that Appellant had no legal right to possession and that none of the issues 

raised in Appellant’s New Matter or Counterclaim serve as a defense to 

Appellee’s ejectment action. In particular, Appellee asserted that Appellant’s 

appeal from the denial of the Set Aside Petition did not function as an 

automatic stay to separate proceedings like the instant ejectment action and 

that Appellant had not applied for a stay or supersedeas from the trial court 

nor posted any appropriate security as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1732-1734.5 

Brief in Support of Motion, 4/30/21, at 5. 

Appellee also asserted that Appellant did not qualify as a “covered 

person” under the federal eviction moratorium and that Appellant failed to 

plead a prima facie claim of unjust enrichment because Appellant did not aver 

that he himself provided any benefit to Appellee. Id. at 6-7. 

On June 1, 2021, Appellant filed an Answer and Brief in Opposition to 

Appellee’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in which he asserted that he 

raised “multiple meritorious defenses” to the Complaint in his New Matter and 

____________________________________________

5 Appellee noted that because an appeal from an order ordering ejectment is 

not an order for the payment of money it would only operate as a supersedeas

if Appellant filed appropriate security with the lower court clerk. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1731, 1733.
J-S05038-22

- 4 -

Counterclaim. Brief, 6/1/21, at 3 (unpaginated). Appellant’s defenses 

included: (1) pendency of his appeal from the order denying his Set Aside 

Petition; (2) the federal eviction moratorium; (3) his alleged retention of a life 

estate in the Property; and (4) unjust enrichment. Id.

On July 21, 2021, the trial court granted Appellee’s Motion for Judgment 

on the Pleadings after concluding that: (1) Appellee is the owner of the 

Property; (2) no automatic stay or supersedeas is active to preclude Appellee 

from taking possession of it; and (3) “all four of [Appellant’s] so-called 

outstanding facts are instead outstanding legal claims, none of which have 

any legal basis.” Trial Ct. Order, 7/21/21, at 4.

This timely appeal followed.6 Appellant complied with the trial court’s 

order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement.7

Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion and/or 

committed errors of law by granting [Appellee’s] Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings where [Appellant] has a pending 

appeal of the trial court’s Order denying his Petition to Set 

Aside Tax Sale pending with the Commonwealth Court, which 

if granted, the Tax Sale at which [Appellee] purchased the 

Property will be set aside and title to the Property revested in 

[Appellant] voiding [Appellee’s] title to the Property in 

question[?]

2. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion and/or 

committed errors of law by granting [Appellee’s] Motion for 

____________________________________________

6 Appellant requested that the trial court enter a stay pending appeal. On 

August 6, 2021, the trial court denied Appellant’s request. 

7 The trial court did not file a responsive Rule 1925(a) Opinion and instead 

relied on its July 21, 2021 Order granting judgment on the pleadings.
J-S05038-22

- 5 -

Judgment on the Pleadings and in effect, dismissing 

[Appellant’s] claim for unjust enrichment against [Appellee] [?]

Appellant’s Brief at 3.8

Before we reach the merits of Appellant’s issues, we consider whether 

he has preserved them. 

It is well-settled that arguments which are not appropriately developed 

with citation to legal authority are waived. See In re Estate of Whitley, 50 

A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012) (reiterating this Court “will not consider the 

merits of an argument which fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority”)

(citation omitted). See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 29–30 (Pa. 

Super. 2006). We recently summarized:

“The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each 

question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and 

analysis of pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 

A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language 

omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing 

argument requirements for appellate briefs). When an appellant 

fails to properly raise and develop issues in briefs with arguments 

that are sufficiently developed for our review, we may dismiss the 

appeal or find certain issues waived. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 

918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 

(explaining that substantial briefing defects may result in 

dismissal of appeal). It is not this Court’s role to develop an 

appellant’s argument where the brief provides mere cursory legal 

discussion. Commonwealth v. Johnson, [] 985 A.2d 915, 925 

(Pa. 2009). 

Kaur v. Singh, 259 A.3d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2021).

____________________________________________

8 Appellant has raised two questions for review, but he has included only one 

section of argument in his Brief. Appellant’s failure to divide his argument 

“into as many parts as there are questions to be argued” in his Argument 

section violates Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). 
J-S05038-22

- 6 -

Appellant here claims, without citation to any legal authority in support, 

that the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion because “the pending 

appeal [to the Commonwealth Court from the order denying his Set Aside 

Petition] is sufficient basis to deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings[.]” 

Appellant’s Brief at 7. He further asserts that, with respect to his unjust 

enrichment counterclaim, he “validly pled . . . that a benefit was conferred on 

[Appellee], namely, the value of the Property [] which far exceeds the price 

paid by [Appellee].” Id. at 8-9. 

Appellant’s conclusory arguments lack citation to and discussion of 

controlling case law applied to the facts of this case and fail to provide 

meaningful legal analysis.9 Accordingly, we find them waived.

____________________________________________

9 We acknowledge that Appellant has included citation to cases pertaining to 

motions for judgment on the pleadings generally and one unpublished 

memorandum explaining the elements of an unjust enrichment cause of 

action. See Appellant’s Brief at 6-8. This boilerplate case law, however, does

not provide us with any legal framework to analyze the claims Appellant has 

raised in this appeal.
J-S05038-22

- 7 -

Order affirmed.

President Judge Panella joins the memorandum.

Judge Stabile concurs in result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/14/2022