Court Opinion

ID: 9639200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:08:13.236689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:19.131144
License: Public Domain

J-S11031-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 HAIYING XI                                   :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                              :         PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant              :
                                              :
                  v.                          :
                                              :
 TAAHIRAT WESTLEY AND KENNETH                 :
 TYLER                                        :
                                              :
                       Appellees              :        No. 2787 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 13, 2023
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                       Civil Division at No(s): 220402026

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                                FILED AUGUST 22, 2023

       Appellant, Haiying Xi, appeals pro se from the judgment entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of Appellees, Taahirat

Westley and Kenneth Tyler (tenants), and against Appellant (landlord) on

Appellant’s landlord-tenant action seeking repossession and monetary

damages. We affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

April 19, 2022, the Philadelphia Municipal Court found against Appellant and

in   favor   of    Appellees   on   Appellant’s   landlord-tenant   action   seeking

repossession of a rental property and monetary damages for property damage

and breach of the lease agreement. On April 26, 2022, Appellant appealed to

the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, seeking a trial de novo, and filed a

complaint raising the same claims he raised at the Municipal Court level. On
J-S11031-23

October 3, 2022, the trial court held a bench trial and found that Appellant

was not entitled to relief because he failed to attach a valid rental license,

certificate of rental suitability, and lead certificate to his complaint.        On

October 12, 2022, the trial court entered an order finding in favor of Appellees

and against Appellant on all claims.           Appellant filed a premature notice of

appeal on November 2, 2022, before judgment was entered on the verdict.1

Judgment was subsequently entered on March 13, 2023.2 On November 3,

2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of matters complained of on appeal, and Appellant subsequently

complied.

       Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

          As a rental case appealed from the Municipal Court and after
          the Municipal Court had examined a rental license and lead
          certificate before ruling this case, whether the Court of
          Common Pleas abused its legal discretion or committed an
____________________________________________

1 In its opinion, the trial court suggests that Appellant waived all his claims on

appeal because he did not file a post-trial motion or otherwise raise his claims
before the trial court. Nevertheless, our review of the record shows that
Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on October 4, 2022, after the court
announced on the record on October 3, 2022 that it intended to find in favor
of Appellees. As the motion for reconsideration raises similar claims as those
Appellant now raises on appeal, we decline to find waiver on this ground. See
Gemini Equipment Co. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 595 A.2d 1211, 1214
(Pa.Super. 1991) (holding that issues raised in timely motion for
reconsideration are preserved for appeal where motion was essentially motion
for post-trial relief).

2 We will relate forward Appellant’s premature notice of appeal to the date
judgment was entered on the verdict. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating notice
of appeal filed after announcement of determination but before entry of
appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on day thereof).

                                           -2-
J-S11031-23

         error by claiming that [Appellant] did not have the rental
         license and lead certificate?

         Whether it would be a better solution for the Court of
         Common Pleas to continue the case, postpone the
         judgment, and order [Appellant] to provide a copy of a
         rental license and lead certificate within a required time
         frame instead of making an easy judgment without any
         factual ground since [Appellant] did not receive a notice
         from the court?

         Whether the Municipal Court committed a clear error and
         abused legal discretion by accepting the tenants’ allegation
         which they had informed [Appellant] of the sewage blockage
         for one year but [Appellant] refused to repair it without
         requesting [Appellees] to present evidence while they
         blocked Police officers from reviewing the sewage damage
         to fulfill a police report required by the insurance company?

         Whether the court abused its legal discretion by refusing to
         determine if police officer could complete a police report
         inside the house as the insurance company required even a
         rental license and lead certificate were not filed.

         Whether the court abused its legal discretion in its failure to
         order [Appellees] to be responsible for the cost of repairs
         for the damages caused by them and to order [Appellees]
         to pay $100 a day after the lease expired but [Appellees]
         refused to leave in violation of lease clause V4 and X4.

         Whether the court violates [Appellant’s] property right
         protected by Article I Section 1 of the Pennsylvania
         Constitution or whether it is fair by prohibiting [Appellant]
         from calculating the loss of rent based on the current fair
         marketing rate after the old lease expired two years ago and
         [Appellees] refuse to renew the lease and leave.

         Whether the court needs [Appellant’s] current rental license
         and lead certificate to expel [Appellees] as trespassers after
         they occupy [Appellant’s] property without permission.

(Appellant’s Brief at 2-3).

      Preliminarily, we recognize that appellate briefs and reproduced records

                                      -3-
J-S11031-23

must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of

Appellate Procedure.    Pa.R.A.P. 2101.     “[I]f the defects are in the brief or

reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal…may be

quashed or dismissed.” Id.

      Regarding the argument section of an appellate brief, Rule 2119(a)

states:

          Rule 2119. Argument

              (a) General rule.—The argument 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 displayed—the particular point treated therein,
          followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are
          deemed pertinent.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Importantly, where an appellant fails to properly raise or

develop her issues on appeal, or where her brief is wholly inadequate to

present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits of the

claims raised on appeal.    Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa.Super. 2000)

(holding appellant waived claim where she failed to set forth adequate

argument concerning her claim on appeal; appellant’s argument lacked

meaningful substance and consisted of mere conclusory statements; appellant

failed to cogently explain or even tenuously assert why trial court abused its

discretion or made error of law). See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21

(Pa.Super 2006) (explaining appellant’s arguments must adhere to rules of

appellate procedure, and arguments which are not appropriately developed

are waived on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those

                                      -4-
J-S11031-23

where party has failed to cite any authority in support of contention); Estate

of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating rules of

appellate procedure make clear appellant must support each question raised

by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority; absent reasoned discussion

of law in appellate brief, this Court’s ability to provide appellate review is

hampered, necessitating waiver of issue on appeal).

      Additionally, “[a]lthough 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

[herself] in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that [her]

lack of expertise and legal training will be [her] undoing.”        Wilkins v.

Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa.

704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007).

      Further, “it is the responsibility of the [a]ppellant to supply this Court

with a complete record for purposes of review.” Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d

622, 623 (Pa.Super. 1993), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 680, 652 A.2d 1325

(1994) (emphasis in original). “[A] failure by an [a]ppellant to insure that the

original record certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a

proper review constitutes a waiver of the issue(s) sought to be examined.”

Id. at 623-24. See also Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa.Super. 2004),

appeal denied, 582 Pa. 676, 868 A.2d 1201 (2005) (reiterating appellant’s

responsibility to produce complete record for appeal).

                                      -5-
J-S11031-23

       Instantly, Appellant’s brief fails to present any cogent argument to

support any of his issues on appeal. Regarding Appellant’s claims that he was

entitled to collect rent, fees and additional damages from Appellees,

Appellant’s brief entirely fails to explain how the trial court erred in holding

that Appellant was not entitled to relief where he failed to attach a rental

license, certificate of rental suitability and lead certificate to his complaint.3

____________________________________________

3 Section 9-3901(4)(e) of the Philadelphia Code provides:

          Non-compliance. Any owner who fails to obtain a rental
          license as required by § 9-3902, or to comply with § 9-3903
          regarding a Certificate of Rental Suitability, or whose rental
          license has been suspended, shall be denied the right to
          recover possession of the premises or to collect rent during
          or for the period of noncompliance or during or for the period
          of license suspension. In any action for eviction or collection
          of rent, the owner shall attach a copy of the license.

Phila. Code § 9-3901(4)(e).          Additionally, regarding lead certification, the
Philadelphia Code states:

          § 6-803. Lead Disclosure Obligation.

                                       *       *   *

          (3) Rental Protections.

              (a) No lessor shall enter into a lease agreement with a
              lessee, other than a renewal lease, to rent any Targeted
              Housing, or a unit in such Targeted Housing, unless (1)
              he or she provides the lessee with a valid certification
              prepared by a certified lead inspector stating that the
              property is either lead free or lead safe; and (2) the
              lessee acknowledges receipt of the certification by
              signing a copy.
                                    *    *   *
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-S11031-23

Appellant does not refute that he failed to attach the required documents but

merely makes conclusory statements that the trial court had no legal basis to

conclude that Appellant did not have a rental license, certificate of rental

suitability and lead certificate. Appellant asserts that the court “should know

that when the Municipal Court accepted and ruled the case, it had already

examined all required documents.” (Appellant’s Brief at 8). Nevertheless,

Appellant fails to cite to any relevant authority to support his contention that

he was not required to attach the documents to his complaint in the Court of

Common Pleas because he purportedly attached the documents to his

complaint at the Municipal level.4 See Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko,

supra; Butler, supra. Appellant’s failure to include the relevant documents

____________________________________________

          § 6-809. Remedies.

                                       *       *   *

          (4) Where a lessor does not comply with any provision of
          Section 6-803(3)(a), the lessor shall be denied the right to
          collect rent during or for the period of noncompliance.

Phila. Code §§ 6-803(3)(a), 6-809(4).

4 We reject this argument in any event because Appellant proceeded to a trial

de novo before the Court of Common Pleas. See Phila.Civ.R. 1001.2(a)
(stating: “Final orders issued by the Municipal Court in connection with
Landlord-Tenant orders pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 1123(a)(3), are appealable
to the Court of Common Pleas. The proceeding on appeal shall be conducted
de novo—meaning that the case starts over and may proceed to a new trial—
in accordance with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedures as if the action was
initially commenced in the Court of Common Pleas”).

                                           -7-
J-S11031-23

in the certified record before us also constitutes grounds for waiver.       See

Kessler, supra; Smith, supra.

      In addition, Appellant baldly asserts that “the proper way to balance the

substantive justice and procedural justice is to continue the case and to order

[Appellant] to submit the required documents within the required time.”

(Appellant’s Brief at 9). Again, Appellant fails to make any argument or cite

to any relevant authority to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion

in deciding not to continue the case. See Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko,

supra; Butler, supra.       Moreover, our review of the record shows that

Appellant failed to request a continuance at the trial court level. See Pa.R.A.P.

302(a) (stating: “Issues not raised in the [trial] court are waived and cannot

be raised for the first time on appeal”).

      Appellant also failed to advance any argument that he was entitled to

damages based on cost of repairs and/or loss of rent in the absence of proof

of a valid rental license, certificate of rental suitability and lead certificate.

Although Appellant claims these documents were unnecessary for the court to

order Appellees to allow the police to enter the residence to inspect any

damage, Appellant supplies no authority to show he was entitled to a court

order to allow police to inspect the residence, particularly where he did not

proffer a valid rental license and lead certificate. Having failed to develop or

                                      -8-
J-S11031-23

support any of his arguments on appeal, Appellant has waived all his issues.5

See Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko, supra; Butler, supra. Accordingly,

we affirm.

       Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/22/2023

____________________________________________

5 Throughout his brief, Appellant also alleges various instances of error by the

Municipal Court.    This appeal lies from the judgment entered in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas following a trial de novo. Accordingly,
any alleged errors committed by the Municipal Court are not properly before
us. See Phila.Civ.R. 1001.2(a).

                                           -9-