J-S41002-18

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DAVID ELMAKIAS AND ANAT 

ELMAKIAS

v.

ANDREA T. SOLOMON AND MICAH A. 

SOLOMON 

Appellants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3849 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Dated November 24, 2017

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

No(s): 17-27457

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 17, 2018

Appellants Andrea T. Solomon and Micah A. Solomon appeal pro se from 

the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County on 

November 24, 2017, denying their petition for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc

from a magisterial district court’s judgment and their emergency stay of 

eviction. In light of Appellants’ failure to ensure this Court received a complete 

record necessary for meaningful appellate review and of the substantial 

defects in their brief, we dismiss this appeal. 

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history herein 

as follows: 

Appellant, Andrea Solomon, filed the petition to appeal nunc 

pro tunc and motion for stay of eviction in this [c]ourt on 

November 22, 2017, seeking to overturn the effect of the lower
J-S41002-18

- 2 -

court's judgment entered September 29, 2017, which had found 

against her in the amount of $12,000 in back rent plus costs 

(establishing the amount of monthly rent as $2,428) and awarding

possession of leased premises (1505 Seneca Run, Ambler, PA 

19002) to the landlords (Appellees). (Not. J./Tr. Residential Lease 

1, Sept. 29, 2017.) Andrea Solomon was the only party against 

whom judgment was rendered in the court below, the only 

petitioning party listed in the caption of the motion for stay and 

accompanying petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

the only party listed as Defendant on the docket of this lower 

[c]ourt. However, the petition to appeal nunc pro tunc also names 

a Micah Solomon as "indispensible [sic] party" (Pet. Leave Appeal 

Nunc Pro Tunc, Nov. 22, 2017) and the Superior Court docket also 

lists him as an Appellant.

The hand-printed petition states as reasons for requesting 

an appeal nunc pro tunc, "Appellant was involuntarily committed 

on [October] 8, 2017, prior to the end of Appeals time. Appellant 

was not released until on or about October 18, 2017. Appellant's 

husband and minor child were left in the home, when constable 

came to post enforcement of the judgement." (Pet. Leave Appeal 

Nunc Pro Tunc para. 3.) The statement of reasons also contains 

barely discernible allegations about an "involuntary petition for 

Bankruptcy, filed [October] 11, 2017" (Pet. Leave Appeal Nunc 

Pro Tunc para. 3), which would have been after expiration of the 

ten-day period allowed by Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. 1002(B) for appealing 

the magisterial district court's judgment for possession of 

September 29, 2017.

Attached to Appellant's motion for stay of eviction was a 

copy of what appeared to be an order of the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the 

matter of Andrea T. Solomon and Micah A. Solomon, Debtors, 

regarding the motion of David and Anat Elmakias 

(landlords/Appellees) for relief from the automatic stay in 

bankruptcy (see 11 U.S.C. § 362) entered November 14, 2017, 

after hearing, stating:

1. The [a]utomatic [s]tay, as it applies to 

[M]ovants David and Anat Elmakias, expired on 

November 11, 2017.

2. The [a]utomatic [s]tay as it applies to 

[M]ovants David and Anat Elmakias[] is reinstated 

effective November 14, 2017 and will remain in effect

until November 27, 2017.
J-S41002-18

- 3 -

3. The [a]utomatic [s]tay is lifted for the limited 

purpose of allowing Debtor Andrea T. Solomon to 

[p]etition the Montgomery County Pennsylvania Court of 

Common Pleas regarding the Eviction Judgment in MJ38110-LT-54- 2017.

4. Debtors are to submit to the Clerk of the 

Bankruptcy Court $2,300.00 no later than 5:00 PM on 

November 27, 2017 in certified funds. If the funds are

not submitted, the [a]utomatic [s]tay is terminated and 

Movants may proceed with an eviction for the property 

at 1505 Seneca Run, Ambler, PA 19002, on November 

28, 2017, or any time thereafter.

5. If Debtors pay the funds into court the 

automatic stay shall remain in effect and a hearing shall 

be scheduled for November 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM in 

Courtroom 2, United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania, 900 Market Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19007 to determine if there are grounds 

for the automatic stay to continue.

(Emergency Mot. Stay Eviction app. 1.) No other information 

about the status or outcome of the proceedings in bankruptcy 

appears of record.

This [c]ourt scheduled and held a hearing on the petition for 

leave to appeal nunc pro tunc and motion for stay of eviction [on]

November 24, 2017, two days after their filing (with the 

intervening day being the Thanksgiving holiday). After hearing, 

the undersigned denied the petition and motion.

That same day, Andrea and Micah filed a notice of appeal of 

the [c]ourt's order to the Superior Court. The certificate of service 

of the notice of appeal, which complied with neither Pa.R.A.P. 

121(c), Pa.R.A.P. 122(b), nor Pa.R.A.P. 906(a), indicated service 

of the notice was being made upon the Elmakiases and their 

counsel by email delivery. Contrary to Pa.R.A.P. 906(a)(2)-(4), 

the certificate failed to show service upon the undersigned Judge, 

the official Court Reporter, or the Court Administrator or his 

designee under the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration, 

Pa.R.J.A. 4007(B)(3). The notice of appeal also did not, in 

violation of Pa.R.A.P. 904(c), Pa.R.A.P. 906(a), and Pa.R.A.P. 

1911, include a request for a transcript of the hearing 

proceedings, and as of the date of this writing no such transcript 

has been ordered or produced.

On December 21, 2017, nearly a month after the filing of 

the appeal, Micah Solomon filed another certificate of service of 
J-S41002-18

- 4 -

the notice of appeal, still noncompliant with Pa.R.A.P. 121(c), 

Pa.R.A.P. 122(b), and Pa.R.A.P. 906(a) (requiring that "proof of 

service compliant with this rule" be served concurrently with the 

notice of appeal), indicating the notice had been served upon the 

undersigned on November 24, 2017, "personally." The 

undersigned does not recall being served that day, or any day, 

with the notice of appeal, and has no such notice in his possession 

or chambers. Cf. Pa.R.A.P. 122 note ("Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 

(unsworn falsification to authorities) a knowingly false proof of 

service constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree.").

On or after March 8, 2018 (the date the Superior Court's 

notice dated March 6, 2018, was postmarked), the undersigned 

received notice from the Superior Court under Pa.R.A.P. 1935(a)

that the record of proceedings in this [c]ourt was overdue to be 

transmitted to that Court pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1931 (providing 

generally that the record must be transmitted to the appellate 

court within sixty days after the filing of the notice of appeal). The 

undersigned investigated the circumstances and issues 

surrounding the notice of appeal and the underlying case, and now

offers this opinion under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) ("Except as otherwise 

prescribed by this rule, upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the 

judge who entered the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, if 

the reasons for the order do not already appear of record, shall 

forthwith file of record at least a brief opinion of the reasons for 

the order, or for the rulings or other errors complained of, or shall 

specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons may 

be found.”). 

Trial Court Opinion, filed March 29, 2018, at 1-4. 

This Court reviews a trial court’s denial of an appeal nunc pro tunc under 

an abuse of discretion standard. Raheem v. University of the Arts, 872 

A.2d 1232, 1234 (Pa.Super. 2005). An abuse of discretion is not merely an 

error of judgment but is found where the law is “overridden or misapplied, or 

the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, 

prejudice, bias or ill will as shown by the evidence or the record.” Freeman 

v. Bonner, 761 A.2d 1193, 1194–95 (Pa.Super. 2000) (quoting Union 

Electric Corporation v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals, & 
J-S41002-18

- 5 -

Review of Allegheny County, 746 A.2d 581, 583 (Pa. 2000) ). An appeal

nunc pro tunc is intended as a remedy to vindicate the right to appeal where 

that right has been lost due to extraordinary circumstances involving fraud or 

its equivalent, duress, or coercion. Union Electric Corporation, 560 Pa. at 

486, 746 A.2d at 584. 

In its Opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court 

indicates that due to Appellants’ failure to create and preserve a record, which 

necessarily should have included the transcription of the notes of testimony 

from the November 24, 2017, hearing on their petition, it was unable to 

conduct a proper analysis of the case to determine whether “fraud, breakdown 

in court operations, or ‘non-negligent happenstance’ may have contributed to 

the late filing of the appeal from the magisterial district court.” Trial Court 

Opinion, filed 3/29/18, at 6. Pa.R.A.P. 1911 requires an appellant to request 

a transcript of any proceeding essential to the consideration of his or her 

appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a). However, our review of the certified record does

not reveal a request for the November 24, 2017, hearing transcript, and no 

notes of testimony from that date or any other are contained therein. 

“For purposes of appellate review, what is not of record does not exist.” 

Woskob v. Woskob, 843 A.2d 1247, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2004), quoting, 

Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355, 359 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied,

764 A.2d 50 (Pa. 2000). “It remains the appellant's responsibility to ensure 

that a complete record is produced for appeal.” Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 
J-S41002-18

- 6 -

944, 950 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1201 

(Pa. 2005). “Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed 

by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. 

To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal 

proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise 

and legal training will be his undoing.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-

12 (Pa.Super. 2010) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 

(Pa. 2011). 

When failure to ensure a complete record hampers meaningful review 

of an appellant's issues, dismissal of the appeal is appropriate. See Pa.R.A.P.

1911(d); see also In re R.N.F., 52 A.3d 361, 363 (Pa.Super. 2012)

(dismissing appeal from decree terminating parental rights where absence of 

a crucial transcript precluded meaningful appellate review); Gorniak v. 

Gorniak, 504 A.2d 1262, 1263–64 (Pa.Super. 1986) (dismissing an appeal 

because the appellant failed to request transcription of divorce master's 

hearing, precluding meaningful review). We agree with the trial court that 

under these circumstances, adequate appellate review is not possible, and the 

instant appeal should be dismissed in light of the incomplete certified record. 

In addition, we note Appellants’ brief is deficient in numerous respects 

and that deficiency serves and an alternative ground for dismissal. Appellate

briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to the requirements 

of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Commonwealth v. 
J-S41002-18

- 7 -

Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2101). “This 

Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the 

requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Id.

at 497–98 (citation omitted). If the defects in an appellant's brief are 

substantial, the appeal may be quashed or dismissed. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See 

also Pa.R.A.P. 2111–2119 (discussing required content of appellate briefs and 

addressing specific requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal).1

Appellants filed what they titled “Appellants’ Opening Brief”; however, 

they failed to articulate therein any issues for this Court’s consideration. In 

fact, Appellants’ brief is woefully inadequate; it lacks, inter alia, a statement 

of jurisdiction, the text of the order from which Appellants purport to appeal, 

a statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the questions 

involved, a summary of the argument, the trial court's 1925(a) Opinion, or an 

____________________________________________

1

 When considering whether the appropriate dismissal of an action should be 

quashal or dismissal, this Court has stated the following: 

Quashal is usually appropriate where the order below was 

unappealable, see Toll v. Toll, 293 Pa.Super. 549, 439 A.2d 712 

(1981) (court lacks jurisdiction-appeal interlocutory), the appeal 

was untimely, see Stotsenburg v. Frost, 465 Pa. 187, 348 A.2d 

418 (1975), or the Court otherwise lacked jurisdiction, see

Pa.R.C.P. 1972. . . . [A]s in the instant case where the problem is 

numerous defects in Appellant's brief, the appropriate disposition 

is dismissal. See First Lehigh Bank v. Haviland Grille, Inc.,

704 A.2d 135, 138 n. 2 (Pa.Super.1997) (Failure to conform with 

the requirements of rules of court is grounds for dismissal).

Bronson v. Kerestes, 40 A.3d 1253, 1255 (Pa.Super. 2012). 
J-S41002-18

- 8 -

averment that the trial court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (10), (11), 

respectively.

 Most significantly, there is no clearly delineated argument section in 

Appellants’ brief, see Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8), aside from what is titled 

“Erroneously Filed Matter” which is completely devoid of, among other things, 

any discussion and citation to supporting authority as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(b). See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.Super. 

2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 703, 940 A.2d 362 (2008) (stating that it is an 

appellant's duty when briefing issues to present arguments that are 

sufficiently developed with pertinent discussion, references to the record, and 

citations to legal authorities); Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 

371–72 (Pa.Super. 2008) (“When an appellant fails to develop his issue in an 

argument and fails to cite any legal authority, the issue is waived.”). 

Appellants’ failure to comply in substantial respects with the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure prevents this Court from conducting meaningful appellate

review. Thus, we conclude they have waived any claims on appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S41002-18

- 9 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/17/18