J-A03037-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

CHATHAM PARK SECTION IV LP

v.

EDWIN FISCHL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 621 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2023

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

No(s): LT-23-000531

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: February 12, 2024

Edwin Fischl (Appellant), pro se, appeals from the order denying his 

motion to file an appeal nunc pro tunc from the judgment of a magisterial 

district judge (MDJ) entered against him and in favor of Chatham Park Section 

IV, LP (Landlord), in this landlord-tenant dispute. We affirm.

Initially, we observe the certified record does not include any documents 

filed prior to Appellant’s “Emergency Motion to File Late Appeal.” We glean 

the relevant factual and procedural background from the sparse record before 

us, the trial court’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs.

1

____________________________________________

1 We emphasize that it is Appellant’s responsibility to supply this Court with a 

complete certified record. Brandon v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 34 A.3d 

104, 106 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2011).
J-A03037-24

- 2 -

Landlord owns the Carriage Park apartment complex located in 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.2 Appellant and Landlord executed a residential 

lease agreement in January 2022. See Landlord’s Complaint, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 

1. According to Appellant, he quickly experienced myriad issues with the 

rental unit, including a cockroach infestation, a malfunctioning laundry 

machine, and a toilet that did not flush. See Appellant’s Brief at 4-7, 10, 35

(unnumbered). Appellant argued Landlord did not resolve these problems 

despite repeated notice by Appellant. See id. at 5-7, 9-10, 36-38

(unnumbered).

The parties previously were involved in two MDJ actions, both of which 

were initiated by Landlord in 2022.

3

 At MJ-05222-LT-0000118-2022, Landlord

filed a complaint with the MDJ seeking unpaid rent and possession of the 

property. On October 18, 2022, the MDJ entered judgment for Landlord in 

the amount of $4,215.67 (including $3,646.67 rent in arrears, plus costs and 

attorney fees). Appellant satisfied the judgment to avoid eviction.

____________________________________________

2 Appellant sometimes separately references “Dreyfuss Management” in his 

brief. Dreyfuss Management is the property management firm for Carriage 

Park. See Dreyfuss Management, https://www.drefuss.net (last visited Jan. 

17, 2024); Carriage Park Apartments, https://www.carriageparkapts.com

(last visited Jan. 17, 2024).

3 Official documents pertaining to these actions are among those absent from 

the certified record. We have ascertained the key events in these actions from 

the public dockets available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/CaseSearch. 
J-A03037-24

- 3 -

At MJ-05222-LT-0000173-2022, Landlord again filed a complaint with 

the MDJ seeking unpaid rent and possession of the property. The MDJ entered 

judgment for Landlord in the amount of $5,704.23 (including $4,993.81 rent 

in arrears, plus costs, server fees, and attorney fees). Appellant satisfied the 

judgment.

On January 24, 2023, Landlord filed the complaint for unpaid rent and 

possession underlying this appeal. The MDJ held a hearing on March 28, 2023, 

at which Appellant did not appear. The MDJ entered judgment for Landlord in 

the amount of $6,122.16 (including $5,421.46 rent in arrears, plus costs, 

server fees, and attorney fees). At Landlord’s request, the MDJ issued an 

order for possession on April 12, 2023. 

Nearly two weeks later, on April 24, 2023,4 Appellant filed a motion to 

file an appeal nunc pro tunc in the Court of Common Pleas. In support of his 

motion, Appellant argued, inter alia, 1) Landlord’s itemized statements reflect 

accounting errors; 2) Landlord was aware of and failed to remedy various 

problems in the property; and 3) Appellant is eligible for various housing 

support grants, which had paid funds to Landlord in the past. See Emergency 

Motion to File Late Appeal, 4/24/23. Appellant sought permission to file a late 

appeal because he “just became informed of information that was not clear or 

known to [Appellant].” Id. Appellant also alleged that an attorney at 

____________________________________________

4 Notably, Appellant’s eviction was scheduled for the same date. 
J-A03037-24

- 4 -

Neighborhood Legal Services promised to file “the paperwork” on Appellant’s 

behalf but failed to do so. Id.

The trial court stayed Appellant’s eviction until it could hear argument 

on his motion. On May 4, 2023, after argument, the trial court denied 

Appellant’s motion as to possession. Order, 5/4/23; see also id. (“This Order 

does not affect [Appellant’s] right to file a timely appeal as to money damages 

only....”). The court also directed Appellant’s eviction to proceed on June 1, 

2023.

On May 25, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se “Petition for Permission to 

Appeal,” which this Court docketed as a notice of appeal.5 The trial court did 

not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement. The court 

nevertheless filed an opinion on July 17, 2023.

Initially, we observe that Appellant’s pro se appellate brief does not 

include the components required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (discussing required content of 

appellate briefs and addressing specific requirements for each subsection). 

“Briefs ... shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these 

rules ... and, if the defects in the brief ... are substantial, the appeal ... may be 

quashed or dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Moreover,

____________________________________________

5 Since filing the instant appeal, Appellant has continued to file pro se

applications for relief in this Court, which largely restated his prior arguments 

and requested a stay of his eviction. Each of those applications for relief were 

denied or dismissed.
J-A03037-24

- 5 -

[w]hile this [C]ourt is willing to liberally construe materials filed 

by a pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any 

particular advantage because he lacks legal training. As our 

[S]upreme [C]ourt has explained, any layperson choosing to 

represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable 

extent, assume the risk that his lack of expertise and legal training 

will prove his undoing.

Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation 

omitted).

Most significant is Appellant’s failure to include a statement of questions 

involved or otherwise identify with specificity the issues he wishes to raise on 

appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). Appellant also failed to cite to or discuss 

relevant legal authority in support of his claim. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). The 

defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial, and we could dismiss his appeal 

on this basis. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Elliot-Greenleaf, P.C. v. Rothstein, 255 

A.3d 539, 542 (Pa. Super. 2021). Nevertheless, to the extent we can discern 

his argument, we address Appellant’s challenge to the denial of his motion to 

file a nunc pro tunc appeal in the Court of Common Pleas.6

We review a court’s denial of allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc under 

the following standard:

Allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc lies at the sound discretion 

of the trial judge. This Court will not reverse a trial court’s denial 

of a motion for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc unless there is an 

abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error 

of judgment but is found where the law is overridden or 

____________________________________________

6 Throughout most of his brief, Appellant bemoans the condition of his rental 

unit and Landlord’s failure to fix a litany of problems. However, Appellant has 

not advanced a legal claim in connection with these complaints.
J-A03037-24

- 6 -

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.

Fischer v. UPMC Northwest, 34 A.3d 115, 120 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations 

and quotation marks omitted; some capitalization altered).

The Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Governing Actions and 

Proceedings Before Magisterial District Judges 1002(B)(1) provides:

[A] party aggrieved by a judgment for delivery of possession of 

real property arising out of a residential lease may appeal the 

judgment within 10 days after the date by filing with the 

prothonotary of the court of common pleas a notice of appeal on 

a form that shall be prescribed by the State Court Administrator, 

together with a copy of the Notice of Judgment issued by the 

magisterial district judgment. The prothonotary shall not accept 

an appeal from an aggrieved party that is presented for filing more 

than 10 days after the date of entry of judgment without leave of 

court and upon good cause shown.

Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. 1002(B)(1).

The trial court has discretion to permit an appeal nunc pro tunc from an 

MDJ decision. “To obtain leave to appeal nunc pro tunc, the movant must 

demonstrate that he ... will face more than mere hardship if the request is 

denied.” Fisher, 34 A.3d at 120. An appeal nunc pro tunc is generally granted 

only in the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud or a 

breakdown in the court’s operations. See id. 

Additionally, an appeal nunc pro tunc may be granted in some 

cases where an appeal was untimely filed because of nonnegligent circumstances related to appellant, appellant’s counsel, 

or an agent of appellant’s counsel. For an appeal nunc pro tunc

to be granted on that basis, the appellant must prove that: (1) 

the appellant’s notice of appeal was filed late as a result of nonnegligent circumstances, either as they relate to the appellant or 
J-A03037-24

- 7 -

the appellant’s counsel; (2) the appellant filed the notice of appeal 

shortly after the expiration date; and (3) the appellee was not 

prejudiced by the delay. The exception for allowance of an appeal 

nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply 

only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has 

clearly established that []he attempted to file an appeal, but 

unforeseeable and unavoidable events precluded h[im] from 

actually doing so.

Id. at 120 n.2 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Instantly, Appellant offers a single, rambling, and partially incoherent 

sentence to support his argument in favor of permitting a nunc pro tunc

appeal. See Appellant’s Brief at 58. Appellant offers three excuses for filing 

his untimely appeal from the MDJ’s order: (1) he obtained new information; 

(2) he suffered health problems which prevented him from filing an appeal; 

and (3) an MDJ appeal had to be filed in person, rather than online, and “the 

person [who] represented they would do it for [Appellant] did not do it.” Id. 

Appellant’s bare assertions do not establish a basis for relief. Appellant

does not allege that his failure to timely appeal was the result of fraud or a 

breakdown in court operations. Cf. Fisher, 34 A.3d at 120. Further, Appellant 

failed to establish a non-negligent reason for his untimely filing. See id. We

therefore conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

Appellant’s motion to file a late appeal.

Order affirmed.
J-A03037-24

- 8 -

DATE: 02/12/2024