IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Housing Authority of the County of :

Armstrong :

 :

 v. : No. 1413 C.D. 2022

: Submitted: December 4, 2023

Joseph S. Gluz, :

 Appellant :

 

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

PER CURIAM FILED: January 19, 2024

Joseph S. Gluz (Tenant) appeals from the August 29, 2022 order of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Armstrong County (trial court) entering judgment on the 

Housing Authority of the County of Armstrong’s (Housing Authority) complaint in 

ejectment and breach of contract in favor of the Housing Authority following a 

non-jury trial. On appeal, Tenant argues the trial court’s decision was not supported 

by sufficient evidence and the trial court erred in determining he violated the terms 

of his lease with the Housing Authority. Upon review, we affirm. 

I. Background

On December 12, 2017, Tenant executed a Residential Dwelling Lease 

Agreement (Lease) with the Housing Authority to rent an apartment in the Garden 

Towers Apartment Complex (Garden Towers). Original Record (O.R.),1Item No. 

1

 Tenant’s reproduced record contains only excerpted portions of hearing transcripts. See 

generally Reproduced Record. On June 12, 2023, the Housing Authority filed an application for 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
2

5, Ex. A at 1-21. Relevant to this appeal, the Lease contains the following 

provisions:

K. RESIDENT OBLIGATIONS

Resident agrees to:

. . . .

(10) not engage in, and cause family members, guests, other persons on 

the premises with Resident’s consent and other persons under 

Resident’s control to not engage in any criminal activity or drug related 

criminal activity on or off the premises. Drug related activity is the 

illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, use or possession of a controlled 

substance, or the possession of drug paraphernalia;

(11) act, and cause family members, guests, other persons on the 

premises with Resident’s consent and other persons under Resident’s 

control to act, in a cooperative manner with [Housing Authority] staff 

and other persons residing in or on property belonging to or controlled 

by [the Housing Authority], and refrain from acting or speaking in an 

abusive or threatening manner toward [Housing Authority] staff and 

other persons residing in or on property belonging to or controlled by 

[the Housing Authority];

. . . .

R. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

dismissal in this Court, arguing Tenant failed to file and serve a designation of the contents of the 

reproduced record, in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2154(a), Pa.R.A.P. 

2154(a). The Housing Authority also argued Tenant’s reproduced record did not comply with 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 2152(a), Pa.R.A.P. 2152(a), because it did not contain the relevant 

docket entries. The Housing Authority also objected to the reproduced record because it omitted

relevant portions of the trial transcript and the Housing Authority lacked the ability to correct the 

omissions due to Tenant’s failure to designate the contents of the reproduced record. By order 

dated July 11, 2023, this Court denied the Housing Authority’s application for dismissal, noting 

the Housing Authority did not suffer any prejudice because “the Court has the original record to 

examine in its review.” Therefore, we have reviewed the original record and will cite to it 

exclusively. 
3

This agreement may be terminated by [the Housing Authority] 

only for a violation of a material term of this agreement . . . . Violations 

of material terms of this agreement include, but are not limited to:

. . . .

(10) any illegal or other activity, including but not limited to disorderly 

behavior or alcohol abuse by [Tenant] . . . which interferes with the 

health, safety, or the right of peaceful enjoyment of other persons 

residing in, on, or in the immediate vicinity of property belonging to or 

controlled by [the Housing Authority] or [its] staff;

Id. at 7-8, 14-15. 

On August 25, 2021, the Housing Authority served Tenant with a letter 

(Termination Notice) notifying him that it was terminating his Lease due to Tenant’s

failure to comply with numerous Lease provisions, including the Resident 

Obligations found in Section K (10) and K (11). O.R., Item No. 5, Ex. B. The 

Termination Notice also informed Tenant he needed to vacate his apartment within 

30 days or face eviction proceedings. Id. Tenant did not vacate his apartment,2 and 

the Housing Authority initiated eviction proceedings in the local magisterial district 

court. O.R., Item No. 5 at 3. On December 9, 2021, the local district court entered 

judgment in favor of the Housing Authority and against Tenant, granting the 

Housing Authority possession of the apartment and awarding damages in the amount 

of $169.25. O.R., Item No. 1.

On December 20, 2021, Tenant appealed the local district court’s judgment to 

the trial court. Id. On August 24, 2022, the trial court held a bench trial on Tenant’s 

2

Instead, Tenant filed a grievance under the Housing Authority’s grievance policy. Pursuant to 

Section R of the Lease, “[w]hen [Tenant] invokes the grievance procedure involving a 

termination/vacate notice, the [Housing Authority] shall not enforce the request to vacate until 

after final disposition of the grievance.” O.R., Item No. 5, Ex. A at 16. The Housing Authority 

was, however, permitted to file an eviction action after the expiration of the 30-day notice period. 

Id. Since the grievance process took more than 30 days to complete, the Housing Authority filed 

its eviction action while it was still processing Tenant’s grievance. See O.R., Items No. 1-5. 
4

appeal. See generally T.T. 8/24/22.3 At trial, the Garden Towers’ property manager 

(Property Manager) testified and explained the Garden Towers has 98 apartment 

units which are occupied by low-income elderly and disabled individuals. See id. at 

10-11. The Garden Towers also has one smoking and one non-smoking outdoor 

pavilion, each with picnic tables, for its residents’ use and enjoyment. Id. at 20. 

After receiving reports of incidents involving Tenant and reviewing Tenant’s file, 

Property Manager wrote the Termination Notice and served it on Tenant. Id. at 

15-17. 

Property Manager explained that the Housing Authority provided Tenant with 

three written notices to remove his personal grill and smoker from the non-smoking 

pavilion in June and July of 2019. T.T. 8/24/22 at 21-22. When Tenant did not 

comply, the Housing Authority was forced to cut the chains Tenant placed on the

items in order to remove them. Id. at 21-25. Property Manager also explained 

Tenant was provided written notice that he violated the Lease when he engaged in 

verbal altercations with other residents. See id. at 23. Finally, Property Manager 

showed the trial court several documents the Kittanning Borough Police Department

(Police Department) provided to the Housing Authority indicating the Police 

Department charged Tenant with harassment, and Tenant ultimately pled guilty. Id. 

at 26, 34. Property Manager opined that Tenant engaged in “repeated, disruptive 

behavior” which made the other residents feel unsafe. Id. at 35-36. 

Donald Blose (Officer Blose), a police officer for the Police Department, 

testified that the police have responded to numerous incidents involving Tenant. T.T. 

8/24/22 at 42-43. Officer Blose explained that several residents expressed they were 

3

 “T.T. 8/24/22” refers to the transcript of the bench trial in this matter, which the Honorable 

Chase G. McClister conducted on August 24, 2022. Although this transcript was included with 

the trial court’s original record, it was not given an item number. 
5

going to move out of the Garden Towers to get away from Tenant. Id. at 45. Officer 

Blose filed charges of harassment and disorderly conduct against Tenant for three 

separate incidents. Id. at 45-47. Officer Blose also opined that many of the problems 

with Tenant stemmed from him “aggressively approaching people on Garden 

Towers’ property telling them to wear a mask.” Id. at 49. 

Shannon Atherton (Atherton), whose mother resides at the Garden Towers,

testified about witnessing Tenant’s aggressive behavior. T.T. 8/24/22 at 56-57. On 

June 17, 2021, Atherton watched Tenant approach the front of the building, look at 

the non-smoking pavilion, realize someone else was in the pavilion, act “like 

Terminator,” march to the other resident, and inform the other resident the pavilion 

was his spot and that the other resident needed to leave. Id. at 58. Tenant demanded, 

multiple times, that the other resident leave, “pounding his fists on the table like an 

angry child.” Id. at 59. The other resident left, and Tenant would not permit him to 

sit anywhere outside, yelling until the other resident completely left the area. Id. 

Tenant then went to the smoking pavilion and demanded a second resident give 

Tenant the second resident’s food stamp card. Id. at 59-60. When the second

resident shook his head no, Tenant said “[k]eep it up. Keep it up or you know what 

you are going to get.” Id. at 60.

Donna D. Myers (Myers), a resident at the Garden Towers, testified Tenant 

threatened her on an elevator on June 26, 2021. T.T. 8/24/22 at 64. Myers explained 

the incident occurred after she got on the Garden Towers’ small elevator and Tenant 

rushed in behind her. Id. at 65. The ride started out normally, until Tenant bragged 

about a new, five-layered face mask and Myers did not respond. Id. at 66. Tenant

then “got extremely enraged at [Myers],” and began chanting about how someone 

was going to kill her because she was not vaccinated. Id. at 66-67. Myers explained 
6

Tenant then began “violently shaking his arm, his great big fist and his index finger 

in my face.” Id. at 67. Tenant then stopped, waited approximately twenty seconds, 

and did the same thing a second time. Id. at 67-68. Myers was terrified and believed 

Tenant would hurt or kill her on this elevator ride. Id. at 68-69. Myers requested to 

be moved to a different building after the incident and was still fearful of Tenant at 

the time she testified before the trial court. Id. at 68-70. 

Frankie Wolmeldorf (Wolmeldorf), a former resident of the Garden Towers, 

testified that Tenant followed him around constantly and made him feel 

uncomfortable. T.T. 8/24/22 at 74, 76-77. Wolmeldorf moved out of the Garden 

Towers because of Tenant’s behavior. Id. at 78. 

Joseph Boston (Boston), a resident of Garden Towers, testified Tenant has 

threatened him for years and will not leave him alone. T.T. 8/24/22 at 81. Boston 

recalled one specific incident that occurred at a nearby grocery store. Id. Boston 

drove to the grocery store and Tenant, who was riding his bicycle, followed Boston

into the grocery store parking lot. Id. at 82. Tenant got off his bicycle and told 

Boston “[y]ou are nothing but an asshole and I am going to beat the shit out of you.” 

Id. Tenant then “started picking his bicycle up and slamming it up and down and 

using a bunch of profanity.” Id. Tenant ultimately returned to the Garden Towers 

without physically assaulting Boston. Id. On multiple other occasions, Boston 

witnessed Tenant stand beside another resident who is terminally ill with liver cancer 

and mock her, saying “whoa, whoa. My liver is hurting.” Id. at 83. Noting that 

Tenant is very strong, Boston explained that he lives in fear for his life and health 

because he does not have a safe place to live. Id. at 83-84. 

The Housing Authority’s Executive Director (Executive Director) testified 

that she was the hearing officer for Tenant’s appeal of the Termination Notice under 
7

the Housing Authority’s grievance policy. T.T. 8/24/22 at 88-89, 93. The Executive 

Director explained that after she heard testimony in Tenant’s grievance appeal of the 

Termination Notice, she concluded

the residents were clearly fearful of living in the building. Again, they 

referred to [Tenant] as a bully on the playground and felt that he 

pr[e]yed on those who were most vulnerable in the building. . . . The 

majority of residents are either elderly and/or disabled. They are all 

low income. Most of them don’t have anywhere else to go, so they 

[are] fearful of losing their home. 

In my opinion, the evidence at that point established that [Tenant] had, 

in fact, engaged in serious and repeated violations of the [L]ease, 

mainly concerning the safety of the other residents.

Id. at 92-93. Executive Director confirmed she upheld the Termination Notice and 

denied Tenant’s request for relief under the Housing Authority’s grievance policy. 

Id. at 93.

Tenant testified on his own behalf. See T.T. 8/24/22 at 103-54. Tenant denied 

any wrongdoing for each incident the Housing Authority’s witnesses testified about

and gave his own version of the facts forsome of the incidents. Id. at 109-29. Tenant 

showed the trial court security camera footage, which did not have any sound, of 

two of the incidents in question. Id. at 130-38. On cross examination, Tenant 

admitted he was in the army, is 6ʹ 2ʺ tall, weighs 235 pounds, and lifts weights 

regularly at a local gym. Id. at 138-39. 

When questioned about why the Housing Authority’s witnesses all testified to 

facts which contradicted his testimony, Tenant asserted the other residents are part 

of a conspiracy against him. Id. at 144. Tenant also asserted the Police Department

and the Housing Authority are part of this conspiracy. Id. at 147. Tenant stated 

there were two reasons for the conspiracy: jealousy and politics. Id. at 148. With 
8

respect to politics, Tenant asserted the conspirators were “anti-vaxxers and antimask and . . . politically on the far right.” Id. With respect to jealousy, Tenant

claims he “won numerous art contests and [is] a self-taught artist” who has about 

45-50 paintings in his room. Id. at 150. Tenant also claimed that “some [of his 

paintings] are worth $10,000.” Id. Despite this claim, Tenant admitted he only ever 

sold one piece of his artwork – for $40. Id. at 150-51. 

After reviewing the evidence, the trial court issued the following brief 

findings of fact:

1. [Tenant] did not cooperate with the reasonable requests of [the] 

Housing Authority staff regarding the grill and smoker at the 

pavilion in violation of Paragraph K (11) of the [Lease].

2. [Tenant] did engage in criminal activity off the premises, which 

resulted in a guilty plea, in violation of Paragraph K (10) of the 

[Lease].

3. [Tenant] did speak in an abusive manner towards one or more 

persons residing in [the Garden Towers] in violation of Paragraph 

K (11) of the [Lease]. 

O.R., Item No. 14. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Housing 

Authority. See id. In the trial court’s opinion filed under Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court explained it based 

its finding of fact on its conclusion the Housing Authority’s witnesses were credible 

and “Tenant’s blanket denials of any improper behavior were not credible.” O.R., 

Item No. 23 at 5.

Tenant appealed the trial court’s order to this Court.4 On appeal, Tenant 

argues the trial court based its decision on insufficient evidence, and the trial court 

4 Tenant originally appealed to the Superior Court. However, by order filed November 10, 2022, 

the Superior Court transferred the matter to this Court.
9

committed legal errors in determining he violated Section K (10) and K (11) of the 

Lease.

II. Analysis 

Our review of a non-jury trial verdict is limited to determining whether 

substantial evidence supports the findings of the trial court and whether the trial 

court committed an error in applying the law. See Pottstown Sch. Dist. v. 

Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 289 A.3d 1142, 1145 n.3 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2023) (citation omitted). We must give the trial judge’s findings of fact 

“the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury.” Id. (citation omitted).

“We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner . . . and 

will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact are not supported by 

[substantial] evidence in the record.” Id. (citation omitted). When the issue 

“concerns a question of law, our scope of review is plenary,” meaning we look at

the entire record. Id. 

A. Substantial Evidence

We begin with Tenant’s argument the trial court’s findings are not supported

by substantial evidence. Tenant believes two of the Housing Authority’s witnesses 

could not have been credible because security camera footage of the incidents 

contradicts their testimony. First, we note Tenant acknowledged the security camera

footage did not include any sound. See T.T. 8/24/22 at 149. Second, we note the 

trial court did not admit the security camera footage into evidence because Tenant 

failed to include it in his pretrial statement. See id. at 153-55. Because the trial court 

did not admit the security camera footage into evidence, we cannot consider it in 

determining whether the trial court’s determination was based upon sufficient 

evidence. See Pa.R.A.P. 1921 (providing that only original papers, exhibits, and 
10

transcripts filed in the trial court and certified docket entries “shall constitute the 

record on appeal”); Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 586 n.12 (Pa. 1997) (appellate 

courts cannot consider any matter which is not part of the record on appeal). 

To the extent Tenant argues the trial court watched the security camera 

footage and those observations, combined with his testimony, should outweigh the 

Housing Authority’s witnesses’ contradictory testimony, we reject Tenant’s 

argument. In addition to observing the security camera footage, the trial court 

observed Tenant and the Housing Authority’s witnesses as they explained what was 

happening during the incidents in question. The trial court determined the Housing 

Authority’s witnesses were credible and Tenant was not credible. We will not 

disturb the trial court’s credibility and weight of the evidence determinations on 

appeal. See Rice v. Compro Distrib., Inc., 901 A.2d 570, 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) 

(“The trial court, as the finder of fact, has exclusive authority to weigh the evidence, 

make credibility determinations, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence 

presented.”).

Considering the evidence, which is summarized above, in the light most 

favorable to the Housing Authority as the verdict winner, we conclude the record 

contained substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s determination. Therefore, 

we reject Tenant’s argument that the trial court’s findings are not supported by 

substantial evidence. 

B. Section K (11) of the Lease

Tenant also argues the trial court’s factual findings do not support its legal 

conclusion that Tenant violated Section K (11) of the Lease because the terms 

“cooperative,” “abusive,” and “threatening” in Section K (11) of the Lease are 

vague. See Appellant’s Br. at 13. We construe a contract “according to the meaning 
11

of its language. The fundamental rule in construing a contract is to ascertain and 

give effect to the intention of the parties. The intention of the parties must be 

ascertained from the document itself, if its terms are clear and unambiguous.” 

Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Riverside Sch. Dist., 739 A.2d 651, 654 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1999). 

We disagree with Tenant’s belief that Section K (11) of the Lease is 

ambiguous and not clear. Tenant’s behavior, which made other Garden Towers 

residents live in fear, was abusive, threatening, and not cooperative to his fellow 

residents under any definition of those terms. Section K (11)’s plain language, 

which reflects the Housing Authority’s intention for its residents to be cooperative 

and respectful toward the Housing Authority staff and other residents, supports this 

conclusion. Accordingly, we reject Tenant’s argument the trial court erred in 

concluding Tenant violated Section K (11) of the Lease.5

III. Conclusion

Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual findings, and the trial 

court properly concluded Tenant violated Section K (11) of the Lease. Because this 

violation alone entitled the Housing Authority to evict Tenant, we affirm the trial 

court’s August 29, 2022 order entering judgment in favor of the Housing Authority 

on its complaint in ejectment and breach of contract.

5 Because we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant the Housing Authority’s complaint and 

eject Tenant on the grounds that Tenant violated Section K (11) of the Lease, we need not evaluate 

Tenant’s argument that the trial court’s factual findings do not support its legal conclusion that 

Tenant also violated Section K (10) of the Lease. Nevertheless, we note that Section K (10) does 

not clearly establish whether all off-premises criminal activity or only off-premises drug-related 

criminal activity violates the Lease. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Housing Authority of the County of :

Armstrong :

 :

 v. : No. 1413 C.D. 2022

: 

Joseph S. Gluz, :

 Appellant :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

 AND NOW, this 19th day of January 2024, the Court of Common Pleas of 

Armstrong County’s August 29, 2022 order is hereby AFFIRMED.