J-S09002-21

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

ECN FINANCIAL, LLC

v.

EARTHSCAPE, INC AND KEN HAUK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 547 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 23, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at 

No(s): No. 2017-06535

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2021

Appellants, Earthscape, Inc. and Ken Hauk (“Hauk”), (collectively, 

“Appellants”), appeal from the January 23, 2020 judgment1 entered upon a 

non-jury verdict in favor of ECN Financial, LLC (“ECN Financial”) on ECN 

Financial’s cause of action. We dismiss this appeal.

The trial court summarized the factual history as follows:

[Appellants’] principal place of business [is] in Foristell, Missouri. 

[ECN Financial’s] principal place of business is [in] Horsham, 

Pennsylvania. On [] November 20, 2015, [Appellants] entered 

____________________________________________

1 Appellants purport to appeal from the January 6, 2020 order denying their 

post-trial motion seeking a new trial or, in the alternative, a judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict. “[A]n appeal to this Court can only lie from 

judgments entered subsequent to the trial court's disposition of any 

post-verdict motions, not from the order denying post-trial motions.” 

Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Constr. Corp., 657 A.2d 511, 514 

(Pa. Super. 1995). Upon praecipe filed by ECN Financial, LLC, judgment was 

entered on January 23, 2020, in favor of ECN Financial, LLC in the amount of 

$48,058.06. Appellants’ appeal properly lies from the January 23, 2020 

judgment. Id. The caption has been corrected accordingly.
J-S09002-21

- 2 -

into a written lease agreement to finance a piece of construction 

equipment identified as a Bobcat T650 track loader[,] including all 

attachments and accessories[,] from [ECN Financial]. It was 

undisputed that the terms of the lease [agreement] provide[d] for 

thirty-six monthly [lease] payments of $1,193.33 [each] for use 

of the equipment and[,] at the end of the lease [agreement,] an 

option to [] purchase the equipment for $29,498.15, return the 

equipment, or continue [leasing] the equipment for [twelve 

additional] months. [Pursuant to the lease agreement, if] the 

[monthly lease payment was] not paid on time, a default 

occur[ed]. Upon default, [ECN Financial was] entitled to 

accelerate the balance due for the remaining [monthly lease]

payments that [had] not been made. The [lease agreement]

further provided that upon default[, Appellants were] obligated to

pay all costs to enforce the lease [agreement], including collection 

costs, repossession costs, and attorney’s fees. At trial, sufficient 

evidence was presented to establish that [Appellants] signed the 

lease agreement. [In] a bench trial, [the trial] court found that [] 

Hauk [signed] the lease [agreement] and was [a] personal 

guarantor [of the lease obligations]. [] Hauk did not attend the 

[non-jury] trial.

A payment history for the lease [agreement] was stored by [ECN 

Financial]. The last [monthly lease] payment that [Appellants]

paid was the October [] 2016 [lease] payment. ECN Financial

recovered possession of the [equipment] in good condition except 

the tire tracks were damaged to the point that they needed to be 

replaced. Net proceeds of $41,958.88 were received from the sale 

of the equipment in March 2017. At the time of [Appellants’]

default on the lease [agreement], there were 25 remaining 

payments [outstanding] as [Appellants] paid 11 of the 36 

payments due [under the terms of the lease agreement].

On March 30, 2017, [ECN Financial] filed a complaint against 

[Appellants] in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania to collect the 

net book value of $59,624.98, including interest at the rate of 

18% per year, plus costs and attorney[’s] fees. In September 

2017, [Appellants] filed a demand for a jury trial, [a] praecipe of

notice of Missouri law, and preliminary objections. The [trial court 

overruled the] preliminary objections[.] Thereafter, [Appellants]

filed an answer with new matter, asserting defenses. . . . On 

September 19, 2019, [ECN Financial] filed a pre-trial motion to 

strike the demand for [a] jury trial and the notice of Missouri law 

pursuant to a governing law provision [in the lease agreement], 

which was granted by the [trial] court. The case proceeded to a 
J-S09002-21

- 3 -

bench trial on December 17, 2019. The entire proceeding lasted 

[one] hour and three minutes during which [ECN Financial] called 

one witness and presented nine exhibits. [Appellants] presented 

no witnesses or exhibits. [Appellants, and in particular Hauk,] did 

not [personally] appear at the trial[. A] medical excuse was 

presented after [ECN Financial] rested [its] case[.] [Appellants]

did not inform the [trial] court of any reason for [Appellants’]

absence, request a continuance[,] or ask for an accommodation 

for [Appellants] to participate virtually at the commencement of 

the trial. [Appellants’] absence was only raised with the hope

[that] it would thwart [ECN Financial’s] counsel from “making a 

point of it.” On December 23, 2019, the [trial] court rendered a 

verdict in favor of [ECN Financial.

2] in the amount of $48,058.06.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/11/20, at 1-3 (record citations and extraneous 

capitalization omitted). Appellants filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial 

or, in the alternative, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial 

court subsequently denied on January 6, 2020. On January 23, 2020, upon 

ECN Financial filing a praecipe to reduce the verdict to a judgment, a judgment 

in the amount of $48,058.06 was entered in favor of ECN Financial. This 

appeal followed.3

Appellants raise the following issues for our review:

1. [Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its 

discretion when it struck Appellants’ September 5, 2017] 

____________________________________________

2 We note that at the conclusion of the non-jury trial, the trial court found that 

Appellants “breached [their] obligations under the [lease agreement] and 

[were] obligated to pay $48,471.98 as a total amount of damages in 

accordance with the [lease agreement].” N.T., 12/17/19, at 55. The trial 

court subsequently entered an order awarding ECN Financial $48,056.06 in 

damages. Trial Court Order, 12/23/19. Judgment was ultimately entered in 

favor of ECN Financial in the amount of $48,058.06.

3 Both Appellants and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-S09002-21

- 4 -

request for a jury trial because [ECN Financial] waived the 

issue [by] not [moving] to strike the jury [trial] request until 

[September] 3, 2019[?]

2. [Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its 

discretion when it struck Appellants’ September 5, 2017]

notice of Missouri Law [because ECN Financial] did not move 

to strike the notice until [September] 3, 2019[?]

3. [Did the trial court err as matter of law or abuse its 

discretion in denying Appellants’ post-trial motion when the] 

trial testimony showed that [Appellants] were not made 

aware that they were waiving their rights when they 

allegedly signed the [lease agreement] with full knowledge 

which is a violation of Missouri Law[?]

4. [Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its 

discretion when it applied Pennsylvania law] and not []

Missouri law[?]

5. [Did the trial court err as matter of law or abuse its 

discretion in denying Appellants’ post-trial motion when ECN 

Financial] failed to show that it did not follow [the] law 

regarding a "commercially reasonable manner" [in 

conducting] a re[-]sale of the [equipment?]

6. [Did the trial court err as matter of law or abuse its 

discretion in denying Appellants’ post-trial motion when ECN 

Financial] failed to produce witnesses to show how the 

[equipment] was resold[?]

7. [Did the trial court err as matter of law or abuse its 

discretion in denying Appellants’ post-trial motion when ECN 

Financial] admitted that [Appellants] did not receive proper 

notice of the re-sale [of the equipment?]

8. [Did the trial court err as matter of law or abuse its 

discretion in awarding ECN Financial] attorney's fees when 

[ECN Financial] failed to produce any document on that 

issue[?]

9. [Did the trial court err as matter of law or abuse its 

discretion by implying] a negative inference in response to 

[Hauk’s] medical letter which stated that he could not attend 

the bench trial[?]
J-S09002-21

- 5 -

Appellants’ Brief at 3.

Preliminarily, we must address the contention that Appellants’ appeal 

should be dismissed because Appellants failed to comply with the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the requirements for filing an appellate 

brief. ECN Financial’s Brief at 11-13.

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 states,

Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material 

respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the 

circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they 

may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or 

reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal 

or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a) requires 

an appellant’s brief to contain, inter alia, an argument section. Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a)(8). The argument section of an appellant’s brief “shall be divided 

into as many parts as there are questions to be argued[] and shall have at the 

head of each part - in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed - the 

particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of 

authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). “The [Pennsylvania] 

Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an 

appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent 

authority.” Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155, 161 (Pa. Super. 

2002). “Appellate arguments which fail to adhere to these rules may be 

considered waived and arguments which are not appropriately developed are 
J-S09002-21

- 6 -

waived.” Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 29 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations 

omitted).

This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments 

on behalf of an appellant. When deficiencies in a brief hinder our 

ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss 

the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived. It is not 

this Court's responsibility to comb through the record seeking the 

factual underpinnings of [an appellant’s] claim.

Irwin Union Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. v. Famous, 4 A.3d 1099, 1104 

(Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 1212 (Pa. 

2011).

Here, Appellants raise nine issues in their counseled brief. The 

argument section of Appellants’ brief, however, is divided into only two 

sub-sections entitled “A. Burden of Proof” and “B. Issues of First 

Impressions[,]” neither of which directly correspond to Appellants’ nine issues. 

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (extraneous capitalization omitted). The “arguments” 

set forth under each of these two sub-sections consist of general statements

without citation to the record, fail to identify the issue or issues to which the 

general statements pertain, and lack any significant legal discussion or 

analysis of Appellants’ claims. The dearth of relevant discussion and analysis

of Appellants’ claims with citation to the record and to legal authority in 

support thereof prevents this Court from conducting any meaningful review of 

Appellants’ issues. Accordingly, because Appellants’ brief fails to adhere to 

the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellant Procedure, we dismiss 

Appellants’ appeal.
J-S09002-21

- 7 -

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/12/2021