IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

F.A. Realty Investors Corp. :
:
v. : No. 1728 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: August 3, 2018 Board of Revision of Taxes :
:
: Appeal of: Steve A. Frempong :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: March 1, 2019

Steve A. Frempong (Frempong), pro se , appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), which quashed Frempong’s appeal of a real estate market valuation

. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm. In 2014, Frempong filed a request for a reduction of the proposed real
estate market value ( valuation appeal) of a certain piece of property located at
5800 North 17 th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the Property)
, owned by F.A. Realty Investors Corpor ation (F.A. Realty). (Reprodu ced Record (R.R.) at 3a, 18a.) Frempong, a shareholder in F.A. Realty, does not own the Property in his individual capacity. ( Id. ) In December 2015, the Philadelphia County Board of Revision of Taxes (BRT) issued a decision , denying the valuation appeal

. ( Id. ) Through2

counsel, F.A. Realty appealed the BRT’s decision to the trial court. Thereafter, Frempong filed a praecipe to intervene.

On January 30, 2017, t he City of Philadelphia (the City) filed a motion (Omnibus Mo tion), seeking
, inter alia , to quash t he appeal and remove Frempong as a party to the appeal

. 1 ( Id. at 3a

- 7a.) The City sought to quash the appeal on two separate grounds. First, the City alleged that F.A. Realty lacked standing to bring the appeal of t he BRT’s decision to the trial court . Specifically, the City averred that F.A. Realty is not a corporation registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, accordingly, F.A. Realty could not bring an action in a Pennsylvania c ourt. ( Id.

at 4a.) Secon d, the City argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. In support of this assertion, the City maintained that Frempong lacked standing to file the underlying valuation appeal with the BRT because Frempong did not own the Property and, therefore, lacked standing to bring the valuation appeal . ( Id. at 5a. ) Based upon this, the City argued that the BRT’s decision was a nullity. ( Id. ) Beyond quashing the appeal , t he City sought Frempong’s removal as a party due to his failure
to p roperly intervene. ( Id. )

Frempong filed a response to the Omnibus Motion. On the issue of whether F.A. Realty could bring an action in a Pennsylvania court due to its unregistered status, Frempong argued that F.A. Realty is a subsidiary of a corporati on registered in Pennsylvania

— F.A. Investment Group, L.L.C. (F.A.

Inve stment Group). ( Id. at 32a.) Accordingly, Frempong argued that F.A. Realty did not need to register. With respect to the City’s allegation that Frempong lacked standing, Frempong argu ed that he had standing because he is a co

- signor and

1 The City also sought to limit expert reports because F.A. Realty failed to timely provide the City with its list of expert reports.3

oblig o r o f a loan secured by the Property . ( Id. at 26

- 2 7 a.) Frempong also argued that, as a party to the proceedings below, he automatically was a party to the appeal
to th e trial court. ( Id. at 29a. ) Further, a s the City did not raise the issue of standing before the BRT, Frempong alleged that the City waived the issue. ( Id. ) Frempong also challenged the Omnibus M otion on the ground of lack of notice and argued that the City failed to properly ser ve him with the Omnibus Motion. ( Id. at 34a.)

Following Frempong’s response, the docke t reflects that the trial court
issued an order
, advising that it would hold a hearing on the Omnibus Motion on
March 13, 2017
, at 10:00 a.m. ( Supplemental Reproduce d Record ( S.R.R. ) at 12b.) On March 13, 2017

— the date of the hearing

— Frempong filed a supplemental
memorandum of law in further response to the Omnibus Motion. The docket reflects that Frempon g filed this memorandum at 9:53 a.m., less than ten minutes before the hearing was set to begin. ( Id. ) In this me m orandum , Frempong argued that he had standing to bring the appeal due to his position as a taxpayer on the Property. ( R.R. at 36a.) In support of this assertion, Frempong averred that he entered into an
agreement with the City to pay the tax liens on the Property, and this agreement conferred standing upon him by implication, as he was a taxpayer aggrieved by the
valuation . ( Id. ) Frempong further averred that he is a les see of the Property and argued that his status as a lessee also granted him standing. ( Id. at 37a.)

Following the hearing, the trial court granted the City’s Omnibus Motion. (S.R.R. at 1b

- 2b.) In so doing, the trial court opined:

[T]he Court GRANTS the City’s [Omnibus Motion] to quash the appeal in its entirety as Mr. Frempong lacked standing to bring the underlying BRT appeal. Mr. Frempong admitted that F.A. Realty owns the Property and that he filed the underlying appeal only in his capacities as sha reholder and loan co

- signor and4 guarantor. Those capacities, however, did not confer standing upon Mr. Frempong to file the appeal. ( Id. at 2b.) Frempong appealed the trial court’s order to this Court

. F.A. Realty did

not appeal

. 2 Frempong argues th at the trial court erred in concluding that he lacked standing to bring the valuation appeal before the BRT . In s upport , Frempong advances a myriad of legal theories. Specifical ly, Frempong asserts that he had standing: (1) due to his status as co

- s igno r of a loan on the Property; (2) as a shareholder of F.A. Realty; (3) as the taxpayer of the Property; and (4) as lessee of the Property

. 3

2 This Court’s review of the trial court’ s order granting a motion to quash is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law, an abuse of discretion, or a violation of constitutional rights. Alma v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals , 83 A.3d 1121, 1123 n. 3 ( Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but rather occurs when the law is overridden or misapplied in reaching a conclusion or the judgment is exercised

“ manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice , bias or ill will, as shown by the evidence of record. ” Commonwealth v. Rucci , 670 A.2d 1129, 1141 (Pa. 1996), cert. denied sub

nom. Rucci v. Pa

. , 520 U.S. 1121 (1997).

3 Frempong also asserts that the City has waived the issue of standing. Due to the relationship between the BRT and the City and the function of the waiver rule, we conclude that the issue of standing is not waived even if it were not made in front of the BRT. See Lincoln Phila. Realty Assoc s . I v. Bd. of Revision of Taxes of City & Cty

. of Phila
., 758 A.2d 1178, 1186 (Pa. 2000). In Lincoln Philadelphia Realty Associates I
, taxpayers asserted that the City waived any issue s relating to the status of tax abatements because the City did not appear at any hearings in front of the BRT. Our Supreme Court, after evaluating the purpose of the waiver rule and the relationship between the City and the BRT, opined: By requiring that an issue be considered waived if raised for the first time on appeal, we ensure that the trial court or agency that initially rules on such matters has had an opportunity to consider the issue. Here, it is apparent, as [the City] suggest[s], that the [BRT] did not lack such opportunity. The [BRT] is a city office. The seven members of the [BRT] are appointed by a maj ority of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, and their salaries are specified in the Philadelphia Code. With regard to real property, the [BRT] appoints assessors, divides the county into assessment districts and5 In Pennsylvania, a party seeking judicial resolution of a controversy
“must establish as a threshold matter that he has standing to maintain the action.” Fumo v. City of Phila. , 972 A.2d 487, 496 ( Pa. 2009). Unlike the federal courts, which derive their standing requirements from Article III of the United States Constitution, standing for Pennsylvania litigants has been created judicially. Id.

at 500 n.5

. “ [ T ] he core concept of standing is that a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge is not aggrieved thereby and has no standing to obtain a judicial resolution o f his cha llenge.” Id. ( citing William Penn Parking Garage , Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh , 346 A.2d 269, 280

- 81 (Pa. 1975) ).

Under Section 14 of the statute known as the First Class County Assessment Law (Assessment Law), 4 “[a] ny person aggrieved by any

assessmen t

. . . may file an appeal therefrom with the board. ” Pursuant to
Section 10 of the Assessment Law, 5 an aggrieved party can also appeal from a
valuation. In order to be aggrieved (and, therefore, have standing to appeal ) , a party

assigns asses sors to those districts, establishes and maintains records of assessments, annually directs its assessors to value each parcel of realty within their respective districts, examines the valuations returned by the assessors and revises the assessments as nec essary, prepares a statement of assessed values of all property for public inspection, and . . . notifies property owners of changes in assessments and hears appeals from such assessments. The City ’ s Department of Collections bills taxpayers in accordanc e with the assessments certified to it by the [BRT]. In assessing property within the City, the [BRT] performs a function “upon which the entire fiscal system of Philadelphia is dependent . . . .” In addition, as counsel for the City stated at a hearing

. . . , the City Solicitor “work[s] with the [BRT].” Given the [BRT’s] role in municipal government, [t]axpayers cannot reasonably argue that the [BRT] was deprived of the opportunity to consider the arguments now being advanced by [the City].
Id. at 1186 (internal citations omitted).

4 Act of June 27, 1939
, P.L. 1199, as amended
, 72 P.S. § 5341.14.

5 72 P.S. § 5341.10.6

must show that it has a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the claim sought to be litigated. William Penn Parking Garage , 346 A.2d at 280 . Our Supreme Court
has defined these interests as follows:

[A] “substantial” interest is an interest in the outcome of the litiga tion which surpasses the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law; a “direct” interest requires a showing that the matter complained of caused harm to the party ’ s interest; an “immediate” interest involves the nature of the causal connection between the action complained of and the injury to the party challenging it, and is shown where the interest the party seeks to protect is within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question

. Pa. Med. Soc’y v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare , 39 A.3d 267, 278 (Pa. 2012).

We begin with Frempong’s assertion that he had standing as an aggrieved mortgage obligor and co

- s ignor of a loan on the Property

. In support
thereof , he cites to Section 12 of the ac t commonly known as the Municipal Claims
and Tax Liens Act ( MC TLA)
, 6 which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny person having an interest in the property, whensoeve r acquired, may . . . intervene as a party defendant and make defense thereto, with the same effect as if he had been originally named as a defendant in the claim filed.” Frempong asserts that his status as a mortgage obligor and co

- signor grants him an equitable interest in the property
sufficient to confer standing to appeal

.

While Frempong may have established standing to challenge a lien
under Section 12 of the MCTLA
, this valuation appeal is not a proceeding governed

6 Act of May 16, 1923, P.L. 207, as amended
, 53 P.S. § 7181

.7

by Section 12 of the MCTLA. Accordingly, Frempong ’s reliance on the MCTLA 7 to support standing in this valua tion appeal is misplaced

.

Further, Frempong’s claimed status as “ mortgage obligor and

co

- signor” on a loan on the property appears to be a misnomer. In claiming this status, Frempong points to an agreement that he signed with the City to pay delinquent real estate taxes on the Property to avoid a Sheriff’s sale. (R.R. at 44a.) In this agreement, Frempong agreed to pay the outstanding real estate taxes on the Property for the tax years 2009

- 2013. ( Id. ) Frempong, however, did not enter into this agreement in his personal capacity. Instead, he entered into the agreement as “Steven Frempong, agent for F.A. Investment Group Inc. ” ( Id. (emphasis added)

. ) During the hearing before the trial court, the par ties discussed the implications of this agreement. The transcript reads as follows:

[ T rial C ourt ] : All right. I understand. What about [Frempong’s] argument that he’s on the hook for the mortgage and, therefore, he has an interest? [ City ] : I would say that this is one of the many downsides of being a cosigner, Your Honor, is that you are on the hook for things that you have literally no control over. In his position as cosigner, he can’t sell the property. He can’t occupy the property without permiss ion of the actual owner of the property. He doesn’t have an ownership interest. He may be an obligor on this loan

— and he may come to regret that some day, as many obligors have. But he is not an owner of this property and he is not responsible for the t axes. And, again, if he is willing to assume personal responsibility for these taxes, today until the end of time, I will withdraw any objection I have to him being an intervenor. But he’s not responsible for them. And until he assumes that responsibilit y, he’s not a party aggrieved by this.

7 Act of May 16, 1923, P.L. 207, as amended , 53 P.S. §§ 7101

- 7505.8 [ T rial C ourt ] : I thought he said he had an agreement with the City. [ City ] : The parent corporation has an agreement with the City. [ Trial Court ] : Mr. Frempong personally does not? [ City ] : Mr. Frempong paid the mone y out of his own pocket. [ T rial C ourt ] : Does Mr. Frempong personally have an agreement with the City? [ City ] : Not to my knowledge. [ T rial C ourt ] : Mr. Frempong, do you personally have an agreement to pay the City in writing? [ F rempong ] : That’s correct. And, Your Honor

— [ T rial Court ] : Where is it? [ F rempong ] : I don’t know what you have there, but I have here my signature. I enter ed into [an] agreement [ on ] August 19, 2014. [ T rial Court ] : Steve n Frempong, agent for [F.A. Investment Group]. Is it your position that the City can sue you personally under this agreement and you will not object to that? [ Frempong ] : No, because I’ve entered into [an] agreement. For that case, yes, I am obligated. And the City could have sued me at any point. [ T rial Court ] : You are personally obligated under this agreement. [ F rempong ] : That’s correct, Your Honor. [ City ] : Can we get a consent order to that effect, Your Honor? [ F rempong ] : Your Honor, I’ve already paid 20,000 [dollars]. Why would he even say that I a m no t obligated? [ T rial Court ] : Well, again, people pay taxes for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily obligating them. Why does it say on the cover page of [the agreement], Steven Frempong, agent for F.A. Investment Group, and not just Steven Frempong?9 [ Fr empong ] : Your Honor, because, as I said, I am obligator of the mortgage. So I was paying to protect my interest. In case there’s a foreclosure, I have to prevent foreclosure. ( 3/13/17 Notes of Testimony ( N.T. ) at 29

- 32 .) While Frempong may have used h is own money to pay the delinquent taxes pursuant to this agreement, he did not enter into this agreement in his personal capacity. Thus, Frempong himself is not aggrieved by the valuation as a result of having entered into t he agreement

. Accordingly, F rempong did not have standing through the agreement with the City.

Next, we must evaluate whether Frempong can claim an aggrieved status due to the fact that he is a shareholder of F.A. Realty. While Frempong acknowledges the general rule that a corpora tion may not appear in court unless represented by counsel, he asserts that two exceptions e xist to this general rule: (1) where a state has “established special small claims courts with informal rules of civil procedure in which corporate as well as indi vidual litigants are required to appear without an attorney;” and (2) stockholder’s derivative actions. (Appellant’s

Br. at 11

- 12 ( citing Walacavage v. Excell 2000, Inc.
, 480 A.2d 281, 284 (Pa. Super. 1984).) Frempong argues that he fits s quarely within both exceptions. These exceptions, however, are inapplicable here . Whether or not an individual may represent a corporation has little importance to evaluating whether Frempong, in his individual capacity, had standing to bring the valuati on appeal. In both exceptions, the corporation is still the party, but it may be represented by someone other than
counsel. Further, we reject Frempong’s attempt to couch the valuation appeal as

a st ockholder derivative action. An appeal of a real est ate market valuation is not the proper forum for a shareholder to bring a derivative suit. Stockholder derivative actions are governed by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1506, and the10

record clearly reflects that Frempong has failed to comport wi th any of the provisions
therein

. Frempong does not cite to any authority that would support his assertion
that a stockholder derivative action h as any applicability to the matter at hand . Thus, the trial court correctly concluded that Frempong did not h ave standing to bring the
valuation appeal by virtue of his status as a shareholder of F.A. Realty.

Frempong next argues that he was aggrieved by the valuation because he has assumed the tax payments on the Property. In so arguing, he again cites to the 2014 agreement with the City and assert s that, as the taxpayer on the P roperty aggrieved by the BRT’s decision , he has standing

. As previously mentioned, Fremp ong entered this agreement as agent for F.A. Investment Group and not in his personal capacity. (R.R. at 44a.) Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “corporate agent” as “[a] n agent authorized to act on behalf of a corporation ; broadly, all employees and offi cers who have the power to bind the corporation .” Black’s Law Dictionary 73 (9th ed. 2009) (emphasis added). Despite Frempong’s insistence that the agreement served to bind him in his individual capacity to pay the outstanding

taxes for the tax years 200 9

- 2013 , the agreement clearly signifies that Frempong bound F.A. Investment Group. Accordingly, as Frempong has no personal liability to pay the outstanding taxes, he cannot claim aggrieved status as a taxpayer.

Finally, we address Frempong’s l ast assertion of aggrievement, where in he claims that he leases part of the Property for his own business, and his status as a lessee provides him standing to challenge the valuation

. L essees of a property may
, in certain circumstances, have standing to chal lenge a decision of the BRT. See Bay Harbor Marina Ltd. P’ship v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals , 177 A.3d 406, 417 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (holding that lessee had standing to challenge denial of tax immunity); but see Marcus Hook Dev. Park, Inc. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals of11

Delaware Cty. , 449 A.2d 70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (holding that lessee did not have standing to appeal assessment)

. Here, however, we need not evaluate whether the circumstances confer standing upon Frempong due to aggrieved status
, b ecause Frempong has failed to put forward any evidence to estab lish the existence of his
status as a lessee

.

At no time during the hearing before the trial court did Frempong aver that he had standing by virtue of being a lessee. Despite the fact that h e filed his supplemental memorandum of law minutes before the hearing began , he never raised this argument or provided any evidence to establish the existence of a lease. Frempong merely continued to assert that his standing came from being aggrieved

a s t he obligor of the mortgage, which he also failed to establish. Thus, Frempong cannot assert standing as an aggrieved lessee.

Accordingly, as Frempong failed to establish that the valuation aggrieved him, he did not have standing to file the valuation app eal . We, therefore,
affirm the order of the trial court. 8

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

8 As the Court affirms on this basis, we need not consider the trial court’s alternative ground for quashing the appeal

— i.e. , that F.A. Realty was not permitted to appeal the BRT’s decision because it failed to register with the Department of State.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

F.A. Realty Investors Corp. :
:
v. : No. 1728 C.D. 2017

: Board of Revision of Taxes :
:
: Appeal of: Steve A. Frempong :

O R D E R

AND NOW, thi s 1 st day of March , 2019
, t h e order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is AFFIRMED.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge