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 judgment 1 entered upon a

non

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

Financial’s cause of action. We dismiss t his 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, [ Appellant s] 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 t he 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
ente red on January 23, 2020, in favor of ECN Financial , LLC in the amount of $48,058.06. App ellants’ 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 [a greement] 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 equ ipment 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, suf ficient evidence was presented to establish that [ Appellant s] signed the lease agreement. [In] a bench trial, [ the trial] c ourt 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 [ Appellant s] paid was the October [] 2016 [lease] payment. ECN Fin ancial recovered possession of the [equipment] i n 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 [Appe llants’] 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 c omplaint against [ Appellant s] in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania to collect the

n et b ook v alue of $59,624.98, including interest at the rate of 18% per year, plus costs and attorney [ ’ s] fees. In September 2017, [ Appellant s] 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, [ Appellant s] filed an a nswer with n ew m atter, asserting defenses.

. . . On Septe mber 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] c ourt. The case proceeded to aJ

- 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 Finan ci a l ] rested [its] case [.] [Appellants] did not inform the [trial] c ourt of any reason for [Appellants’] absence, request a continuance [,] or ask for an accommo dation 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] c ourt 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 jud gment, a judgment

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

appeal followed. 3

Appellants raise the following issue s for our review:

1. [Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion when it struck Appel l ants’ September 5, 2017 ]

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 We note that at the conclusion of the non

- jury t rial, the trial court found that Appellants “breached [their] obligations under the [lease agreement] and [ we re] 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 su bsequently 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 str uck Appel l ants’ 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 w hen 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 l aw [?]

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 " c ommercially 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 pr oduce 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

- s ale [ 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 abu se its discretion by implying] a negative inference in response to [Hauk’s] medical letter which stated that he could not attend the b ench trial [?]J

- S09002

- 21

- 5

-

Appellants’ Brief at 3.

Preliminarily, we must address the contention that Appellants’ appeal

should be dis missed 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 repro duced 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 a ppellant 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

a n 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 dis played

- 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 raise s 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 appro priately developed areJ

- 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 con duct 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 onl y 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 state ments

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

. Th e 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 an y 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