J-A07031-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

2327 E. YORK LLC

v.

THOMAS HOPKINS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2544 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered August 30, 2022

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

No(s): 200600297

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED MARCH 16, 2023

Thomas Hopkins (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order entered in 

the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying his petition to open 

a confession of judgment in favor of 2327 E. York LLC (Appellee). As will be 

discussed below, Appellant submits a two-page brief and a litany of exhibits 

with no explanation of their relevance to any purported argument. Because 

we conclude that Appellant’s brief is fatally deficient and he failed to file a 

timely petition to open the confessed judgment, we affirm. 

Due to our disposition of this appeal, a detailed description of the 

underlying factual history is unnecessary. Briefly, Appellant entered into a 

five-year commercial lease agreement with Appellee for the rental of a 

property located on East York Street (Property) in Philadelphia, which 

commenced on June 21, 2019. See Lease Agreement, 6/21/19, at 1 

(unpaginated). The lease required Appellant to pay rent on the first of each 
J-A07031-23

- 2 -

month in the sum of $4,000.00 beginning on July 1, 2019.

1

 Id. at 1-2. The

lease agreement also included the following terms:

24. Events of Default; Remedies.

* * *

(c) If [Appellant] shall default in the payment of the rent 

reserved or in the payment of any other sums due hereunder by 

[Appellant, Appellant] hereby authorizes and empowers any 

prothonotary or attorney of any court of record to appear for 

[Appellant] in any and all actions which may be brought for said 

rent and/or said other sums; to confess judgment against 

[Appellant] for all or any part of said rent and/or said other 

sums; including but not limited to the amounts due from 

[Appellant] to [Appellee] under subsections, (I), (II), (III) of this 

section; and for interest and costs together with an attorney’s 

commission for collection of [5%]. Such authority shall not be 

exhausted by one exercise thereof, but judgment may be 

confessed as aforesaid from time to time as often as any of said 

rent and/or other sums shall fall due or be in arrears, and such 

powers may be exercised as well after the expiration of the initial 

term of this lease and/or during any extended or renewal term of 

this lease and/or after the expiration of any extended or renewal 

term of this lease.

(d) Upon an event of default hereunder or the expiration of 

the term of this lease, [Appellant] hereby authorizes and 

empowers any prothonotary or attorney of any court of record to 

appear for [Appellant] in any and all actions which may be brought 

for the recovery by [Appellee] of possession of the demised

premises, and confession of judgment in ejectment for which this 

lease shall be his sufficient warrant; thereupon, if [Appellee] so 

desires, an appropriate writ of possession may issue forthwith, 

without any prior writ or proceeding whatsoever, and provided 

____________________________________________

1 Under the terms of the lease, rent for Property was to be raised at the 

conclusion of each year to a predetermined amount. See Lease Agreement 

at 2. Rent for Property was $4,000.00 a month for the period of July 1, 2019, 

through June 30, 2020. 
J-A07031-23

- 3 -

that if for any reason after such action shall have been 

commenced it shall be determined and possession of the demised

premises remain in or be restored to [Appellant], [Appellee] shall 

have the right for the same default and upon any subsequent

default or defaults or upon the termination of this lease or 

[Appellant]’s rights of possession as hereinbefore set forth, to 

confess one or more judgments in ejectment as hereinbefore set 

forth to recover possession of the demised premises. Such 

authority shall not be exhausted by one exercise thereof, and such 

authority may be exercised as well after the expiration of the term 

of this lease.

(e) In any confessed judgment of ejectment and or for rent 

and/or other sums brought hereon, [Appellee] shall first cause to 

be filed in such action an affidavit made by [Appellee] or someone 

acting for [Appellee], setting forth the facts necessary to authorize 

the entry of judgment, of which facts such affidavit shall be prima 

facie evidence, and if a true copy of this [l]ease shall be filed in 

such suit, action or actions, it shall not be necessary to file the 

original as a warrant of attorney, any rule of [c]ourt, custom or 

practice to the contrary notwithstanding.

* * *

This [l]ease contains the entire agreement between the 

parties relating to the subject matter hereof and shall not be 

changed, modified, terminated or discharged, in whole or in part, 

unless by an agreement in writing and signed by both parties. 

Id. at 11, 13-14, 21 (emphasis added & some capitalization omitted; 

unpaginated). 

Appellant purportedly paid rent “in accordance with the [l]ease” until 

September 2019 and then “surrendered the premises” back to Appellee. See

Appellee’s Complaint — Confession of Judgment Pursuant to Warrant of 
J-A07031-23

- 4 -

Attorney (Appellee’s Complaint), 6/5/2020, at 5.

2

 Appellee did not locate 

another tenant until January 2020. Id. 

On June 5, 2020, Appellee filed a complaint in confession of judgment 

against Appellant. In the complaint, Appellee alleged that Appellant failed to 

pay attorney’s fees, court costs, and rent “through the end of December, 

2019[,]” which amounted to $30,639.41. Appellee’s Complaint at 5. Appellee 

also averred that “despite repeated demands[,]” and “notice pursuant to the 

[l]ease” that Appellant was in default, he continued to refuse to pay these 

amounts. Id. Appellee demanded a money judgment in its favor against 

Appellant. Id. at 6. Appellee also attached a copy of the lease signed by the 

parties to the complaint. Appellant was served with the confession of 

judgment on August 10, 2020.

3

 On December 23, 2020, Appellee filed a 

praecipe for writ of execution upon a confessed judgment. 

On April 16, 2021, Appellant was served with a notice of taking a 

deposition in aid of execution for a May 17, 2021, deposition. See Appellee’s 

Notice of Taking a Deposition in Aid of Execution, 4/16/21. Appellant failed to 

appear. Appellee then filed a motion to compel Appellant’s deposition, which 

the trial court granted on August 26, 2021. See Appellee’s Motion to Compel 

Deposition of Appellant, 6/8/21, at 1 (unpaginated); Order, 8/26/21. On 

____________________________________________

2 Appellee’s complaint and averment of judgment are dated May 20, 2020, 

but the docket reflects both documents were filed on June 5, 2020. 

3 Although the docket entry states Appellant was served on August 10, 2020,

proof of service was not entered until September 23rd. 
J-A07031-23

- 5 -

September 9, 2021, Appellant was served with notice of the court’s order. 

See Return of Service, 9/22/21. The limited record does not indicate if the 

second scheduled deposition occurred or if Appellant attended. 

On June 6, 2022, Appellant filed a petition to open the confessed

judgment. It appears that in lieu of a brief in support of his petition, Appellant 

filed a one-page, pro se document requesting a hearing to present evidence 

that he made payments for past rent amounting to $16,000.00. See

Appellant’s Pro Se Petition to Open Judgment, 6/6/22, at 5 (unpaginated). He 

alleges these payments were made “from the proceeds of the sale of the 

business in question.” Id. 

Appellee responded to the petition, denying that Appellant “made any 

payments towards the confessed judgment” and in the event he did, Appellant 

“failed to timely allege said payments were made[.]” Appellee’s Response to 

Appellant’s Petition to Open Confessed Judgment and to Stay Execution, 

6/14/22, at 1. 

On June 22, 2022, Appellant filed an answer to Appellee’s response, 

alleging the following: 

On August 5th 2020[,] I had a medical emergency occur 

(spontaneous subdural hematoma) and was transported to 

Cooper Medical Center in Camden, NJ for emergency treatment. 

I was released on August 9th. The following week on August 17th 

another episode occurred and I was transported to Temple 

University Medical Center where an [emergency] medical 

procedure (surgery to correct the brain hematoma) was 

completed. I was discharged from the Temple University Medical 

Center on August 19th to complete recovery steps. The summary 
J-A07031-23

- 6 -

documents relating to these events are included with this 

response.

I did not see the initial request from [Appellee]’s counsel but 

did see subsequent requests. My efforts to hire a lawyer to 

represent me had been hampered by the financial distress I was 

in through August 2021. In September 2021[,] I was able to 

retain a lawyer to represent me in this matter with the goal of a 

fair settlement of the case based on the fact that there is $16,000 

unaccounted for in total payments made to the [Appellee]. The 

[Appellee] has not agreed with the offers presented. At this time 

I am representing myself and request the case [be] opened and 

reviewed by the court so I can provide my records on this matter. 

Appellant’s Answer to Appellee’s Opposition of Petition to Open Judgment,

4

6/22/22, at 5 (unpaginated). 

On August 30, 2022,5the trial court denied Appellant’s petition to open 

confessed judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing. See Order, 

8/30/22. The court did not provide its reasons for denying the petition or file 

an opinion in support. After entering the order, the assigned trial judge 

resigned from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. See Letter, 

11/15/22. A new trial judge was not assigned to the matter. This timely 

appeal followed. 

Before addressing any purported claims on appeal, we must determine

whether Appellant’s brief complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

____________________________________________

4 We note Appellant titled the document, “Answer to Response Filed by 

Appellee’s Counsel.” We changed the name to properly identify the nature of 

the filing.

5 The trial court’s order is dated August 29, 2022, but it was not entered onto 

the docket until August 30th. See Order, 8/30/22. 
J-A07031-23

- 7 -

Procedure. The entirety of Appellant’s brief is two pages in length, and 

consists of one paragraph, which is as follows: 

Request for the Superior Court to open the [t]rial [c]ourt Docket 

No[.] 200600297 [Judgment] for further review of the details 

regarding proceeds applied to outstanding balances owed. The 

dispute is specifically related to the payment of 4 months of backrent ($16k) owed to [Appellee] from the proceeds of the sale of 

the business. These funds have not been applied as agreed. 

[Appellee] did not deliver any invoice or documentation for 

outstanding costs to date that conflict with the enclosed 

supporting documentation.

Enclosed are supporting documents related to this appeal.

Appellant’s Brief at 1 (unpaginated; grammatical errors in original). The 

second page of Appellant’s brief is an index of attached exhibits. Id. at 2. 

Appellant’s pro se brief materially fails to conform to the requirements 

set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a). Specifically, Appellant’s brief either entirely omits or does not 

adequately include a statement of jurisdiction, reference to the order or other 

determination in question, statement of the scope and standard of review, 

statement of the questions involved, a statement of the case, a summary of 

the argument, and argument for Appellant. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3), 2114,

2115(a), 2116(a), 2117(a), 2118, 2119. Most notably, Appellant fails to refer 

to any part of the record and does not cite any legal authority in support of 

his contention. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b)-(c). 

Although this Court is willing to construe briefs filed by a pro se litigants 

liberally, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. 

See Elliot-Greenleaf, P.C. v. Rothstein, 255 A.3d 539, 542 (Pa. Super. 
J-A07031-23

- 8 -

2021). Our Supreme Court has noted that when a lay person represents 

themselves in a legal proceeding, they “must, to some reasonable extent, 

assume the risk that [their] lack of expertise and legal training will prove 

[their] undoing.” See id. (citation omitted). This Court has previously stated:

[We] 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 [a party’s] claim.

Irwin Union Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Famous, 4 A.3d 1099, 1103 (Pa. 

Super. 2010) (citations omitted). 

In the present case, Appellant fails to even provide a statement of 

questions involved or any argument in support of his bald assertions. We 

emphasize:

[T]he omission of a statement of questions presented is 

particularly grievous since the statement . . . defines the specific 

issues this [C]ourt is asked to review. When the omission of the 

statement of questions presented is combined with the lack of any 

organized and developed arguments, it becomes clear that 

appellant’s brief is insufficient to allow us to conduct meaningful 

judicial review.

Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citations 

omitted). 

We find Appellant’s two-page brief, consisting of one paragraph 

requesting “further review” of his petition to open judgment, and an index of

miscellaneous exhibits, does not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

We cannot presume what arguments he meant to put forth, nor can we simply 
J-A07031-23

- 9 -

speculate or assume his intended purpose for each of the attached exhibits. 

As there is no discernable argument presented before us, we conclude 

Appellant’s claims are waived on this basis. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (the 

argument section of an appellate brief must provide “discussion and citation 

of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”); see Irwin Union Nat’l Bank & 

Trust Co., 4 A.3d at 1103 (“When deficiencies in a brief hinder our ability to 

conduct meaningful appellate review, we may . . . find certain issues to be 

waived.”); see Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“When 

issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when briefs are wholly 

inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the 

merits thereof.”) (citation & internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, even if we were to determine that Appellant’s brief complied 

with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we would conclude no relief is due. We 

review a trial court’s ruling on a petition to strike or open a confessed 

judgment for an abuse of discretion or error of law. See Ferrick v. Bianchini, 

69 A.3d 642, 647 (Pa. Super. 2013). Our scope of review on appeal is “very 

narrow” and we will overturn the trial court’s decision only if the “court abused 

its discretion or committed manifest error.” Atlantic Nat'l Trust, LLC v. 

Stivala Invs., Inc., 922 A.2d 919, 925 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

Where the factual averments in a complaint of a confession of judgment 

are contested, a petitioner may seek remedy through a petition to open 

judgment. See Neducsin v. Caplan, 121 A.3d 498, 504 (Pa. Super. 2015). 

“A petition to open a confessed judgment is an appeal to the equitable powers 
J-A07031-23

- 10 -

of the court.” Id. The court may open a confessed judgment “if the petitioner 

(1) acts promptly, (2) alleges a meritorious defense, and (3) can produce 

sufficient evidence to require submission of the case to a jury.” Id. at 506 

(citation and emphasis omitted). When a petitioner is served with written 

notice of the confessed judgment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2956.1(c)(2),

6

they 

may file a petition to open the judgment within 30 days after that date, unless 

they can demonstrate a compelling reason for the delay. Pa.R.C.P. 

2959(a)(3). An untimely petition will be denied. See id. 

Here, Appellee filed a confession of judgment on June 5, 2020,

7 and 

served it on Appellant on September 23rd. Appellee then filed a praecipe for 

writ of execution on December 23rd. Appellee indicated that notice had been 

served at least 30 days prior to the filing of the praecipe for writ of execution 

as evidenced by a return of service filed of record. See Appellee’s Praecipe 

for Writ of Execution Upon A Confessed Judgment, 12/23/20, at 2. As such, 

Appellant had 30 days from the date of service of the confession of judgment

— or October 23, 2020 — to file a petition to open judgment. See Pa.R.C.P. 

236(b); Pa.R.C.P. 2956(c)(2)(i). 

____________________________________________

6 Rule 2956.1 dictates that an “[e]xecution upon a judgment entered by 

confession . . . shall be . . . conditioned upon the service of notice on the 

defendant in the judgment . . . at least thirty days prior to the filing of the

praecipe for the writ of execution[.]” Pa.R.C.P. 2956.1(c)(2)(i). 

7 Notice under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 236(b) was provided to 

Appellant. See Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) (“The prothonotary shall note in the docket 

the giving of the notice and, when a judgment by confession is entered, the 

mailing of the required notice and documents.”).
J-A07031-23

- 11 -

Appellant filed a petition to open on June 6, 2022, over one and a half 

years after the deadline to file had expired. He did not state that he never 

received the complaint or the confessed judgment, rather, he explained his 

late filing was due financial difficulties after experiencing medical emergencies

in August 2020.8 See Appellant’s Answer to Response Filed by Appellee’s 

Counsel, at 5 (unpaginated). 

Appellant did not “act promptly” nor did he provide the trial court with 

a “compelling reason” for the one-and-a-half-year delay. See Pa.R.C.P. 

2959(a)(3); Neducsin, 121 A.3d at 506. It merits mention that Appellant’s 

financial difficulties do not afford him an unlimited filing extension until he 

resolves his financial hardships. Moreover, we note that in his June 22, 2022, 

answer, Appellant admitted that he was no longer in financial distress after 

August 2021 and had retained legal counsel in September 2021.9 See

Appellant’s Answer to Response Filed by Appellee’s Counsel, at 5 

(unpaginated). Despite this, Appellant waited approximately nine more 

____________________________________________

8

In his response to Appellee, we note that Appellant stated he “did not see 

the initial request from [Appellee’s] counsel but did see subsequent requests.” 

See Appellant’s Answer to Response Filed by Appellee’s Counsel, at 5 

(unpaginated). Appellant did not indicate what “requests” he was referencing 

or what the subject of the “requests” were. 

9 Appellant has proceeded pro se throughout the present appeal. It is unclear 

when he decided to move forward without counsel. 
J-A07031-23

- 12 -

months to file a petition to open the confessed judgment.

10

 Accordingly, we 

would conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied 

Appellant’s petition. 

In sum, the defects regarding Appellant’s appellate brief preclude us 

from conducting meaningful review, and further, his petition to open was filed 

beyond the deadline without compelling reason for the delay. As such, we 

need not address this appeal further. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s 

August 30, 2022, order denying Appellant’s petition to open the confessed 

judgment. 

Order affirmed. We direct the Prothonotary to remove this case from 

the March 21-22, 2023, argument list.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/16/2023

____________________________________________

10 We acknowledge that even if Appellant filed his petition when he retained 

counsel in September 2021, it would still be filed after the 30-day filing 

deadline, and he would still be required to demonstrate a reason for the delay.