Court Opinion

ID: 9925396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 17:09:09.568466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:20.673267
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Housing Authority of the County of         :
Armstrong                                  :
                                           :
           v.                              : No. 1413 C.D. 2022
                                           : Submitted: December 4, 2023
Joseph S. Gluz,                            :
                                 Appellant :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM                                                FILED: January 19, 2024

       Joseph S. Gluz (Tenant) appeals from the August 29, 2022 order of the Court
of Common Pleas of Armstrong County (trial court) entering judgment on the
Housing Authority of the County of Armstrong’s (Housing Authority) complaint in
ejectment and breach of contract in favor of the Housing Authority following a
non-jury trial. On appeal, Tenant argues the trial court’s decision was not supported
by sufficient evidence and the trial court erred in determining he violated the terms
of his lease with the Housing Authority. Upon review, we affirm.
                                   I.     Background
       On December 12, 2017, Tenant executed a Residential Dwelling Lease
Agreement (Lease) with the Housing Authority to rent an apartment in the Garden
Towers Apartment Complex (Garden Towers). Original Record (O.R.),1 Item No.

1
  Tenant’s reproduced record contains only excerpted portions of hearing transcripts. See
generally Reproduced Record. On June 12, 2023, the Housing Authority filed an application for
(Footnote continued on next page…)
5, Ex. A at 1-21.         Relevant to this appeal, the Lease contains the following
provisions:

       K. RESIDENT OBLIGATIONS

               Resident agrees to:

       ....

       (10) not engage in, and cause family members, guests, other persons on
       the premises with Resident’s consent and other persons under
       Resident’s control to not engage in any criminal activity or drug related
       criminal activity on or off the premises. Drug related activity is the
       illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, use or possession of a controlled
       substance, or the possession of drug paraphernalia;

       (11) act, and cause family members, guests, other persons on the
       premises with Resident’s consent and other persons under Resident’s
       control to act, in a cooperative manner with [Housing Authority] staff
       and other persons residing in or on property belonging to or controlled
       by [the Housing Authority], and refrain from acting or speaking in an
       abusive or threatening manner toward [Housing Authority] staff and
       other persons residing in or on property belonging to or controlled by
       [the Housing Authority];

       ....

       R. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

dismissal in this Court, arguing Tenant failed to file and serve a designation of the contents of the
reproduced record, in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2154(a), Pa.R.A.P.
2154(a). The Housing Authority also argued Tenant’s reproduced record did not comply with
Rule of Appellate Procedure 2152(a), Pa.R.A.P. 2152(a), because it did not contain the relevant
docket entries. The Housing Authority also objected to the reproduced record because it omitted
relevant portions of the trial transcript and the Housing Authority lacked the ability to correct the
omissions due to Tenant’s failure to designate the contents of the reproduced record. By order
dated July 11, 2023, this Court denied the Housing Authority’s application for dismissal, noting
the Housing Authority did not suffer any prejudice because “the Court has the original record to
examine in its review.” Therefore, we have reviewed the original record and will cite to it
exclusively.

                                                 2
             This agreement may be terminated by [the Housing Authority]
       only for a violation of a material term of this agreement . . . . Violations
       of material terms of this agreement include, but are not limited to:

       ....

       (10) any illegal or other activity, including but not limited to disorderly
       behavior or alcohol abuse by [Tenant] . . . which interferes with the
       health, safety, or the right of peaceful enjoyment of other persons
       residing in, on, or in the immediate vicinity of property belonging to or
       controlled by [the Housing Authority] or [its] staff;

Id. at 7-8, 14-15.
       On August 25, 2021, the Housing Authority served Tenant with a letter
(Termination Notice) notifying him that it was terminating his Lease due to Tenant’s
failure to comply with numerous Lease provisions, including the Resident
Obligations found in Section K (10) and K (11). O.R., Item No. 5, Ex. B. The
Termination Notice also informed Tenant he needed to vacate his apartment within
30 days or face eviction proceedings. Id. Tenant did not vacate his apartment,2 and
the Housing Authority initiated eviction proceedings in the local magisterial district
court. O.R., Item No. 5 at 3. On December 9, 2021, the local district court entered
judgment in favor of the Housing Authority and against Tenant, granting the
Housing Authority possession of the apartment and awarding damages in the amount
of $169.25. O.R., Item No. 1.
       On December 20, 2021, Tenant appealed the local district court’s judgment to
the trial court. Id. On August 24, 2022, the trial court held a bench trial on Tenant’s

2
    Instead, Tenant filed a grievance under the Housing Authority’s grievance policy. Pursuant to
Section R of the Lease, “[w]hen [Tenant] invokes the grievance procedure involving a
termination/vacate notice, the [Housing Authority] shall not enforce the request to vacate until
after final disposition of the grievance.” O.R., Item No. 5, Ex. A at 16. The Housing Authority
was, however, permitted to file an eviction action after the expiration of the 30-day notice period.
Id. Since the grievance process took more than 30 days to complete, the Housing Authority filed
its eviction action while it was still processing Tenant’s grievance. See O.R., Items No. 1-5.

                                                 3
appeal. See generally T.T. 8/24/22.3 At trial, the Garden Towers’ property manager
(Property Manager) testified and explained the Garden Towers has 98 apartment
units which are occupied by low-income elderly and disabled individuals. See id. at
10-11. The Garden Towers also has one smoking and one non-smoking outdoor
pavilion, each with picnic tables, for its residents’ use and enjoyment. Id. at 20.
After receiving reports of incidents involving Tenant and reviewing Tenant’s file,
Property Manager wrote the Termination Notice and served it on Tenant. Id. at
15-17.
       Property Manager explained that the Housing Authority provided Tenant with
three written notices to remove his personal grill and smoker from the non-smoking
pavilion in June and July of 2019. T.T. 8/24/22 at 21-22. When Tenant did not
comply, the Housing Authority was forced to cut the chains Tenant placed on the
items in order to remove them. Id. at 21-25. Property Manager also explained
Tenant was provided written notice that he violated the Lease when he engaged in
verbal altercations with other residents. See id. at 23. Finally, Property Manager
showed the trial court several documents the Kittanning Borough Police Department
(Police Department) provided to the Housing Authority indicating the Police
Department charged Tenant with harassment, and Tenant ultimately pled guilty. Id.
at 26, 34. Property Manager opined that Tenant engaged in “repeated, disruptive
behavior” which made the other residents feel unsafe. Id. at 35-36.
       Donald Blose (Officer Blose), a police officer for the Police Department,
testified that the police have responded to numerous incidents involving Tenant. T.T.
8/24/22 at 42-43. Officer Blose explained that several residents expressed they were

3
   “T.T. 8/24/22” refers to the transcript of the bench trial in this matter, which the Honorable
Chase G. McClister conducted on August 24, 2022. Although this transcript was included with
the trial court’s original record, it was not given an item number.

                                               4
going to move out of the Garden Towers to get away from Tenant. Id. at 45. Officer
Blose filed charges of harassment and disorderly conduct against Tenant for three
separate incidents. Id. at 45-47. Officer Blose also opined that many of the problems
with Tenant stemmed from him “aggressively approaching people on Garden
Towers’ property telling them to wear a mask.” Id. at 49.
      Shannon Atherton (Atherton), whose mother resides at the Garden Towers,
testified about witnessing Tenant’s aggressive behavior. T.T. 8/24/22 at 56-57. On
June 17, 2021, Atherton watched Tenant approach the front of the building, look at
the non-smoking pavilion, realize someone else was in the pavilion, act “like
Terminator,” march to the other resident, and inform the other resident the pavilion
was his spot and that the other resident needed to leave. Id. at 58. Tenant demanded,
multiple times, that the other resident leave, “pounding his fists on the table like an
angry child.” Id. at 59. The other resident left, and Tenant would not permit him to
sit anywhere outside, yelling until the other resident completely left the area. Id.
Tenant then went to the smoking pavilion and demanded a second resident give
Tenant the second resident’s food stamp card. Id. at 59-60. When the second
resident shook his head no, Tenant said “[k]eep it up. Keep it up or you know what
you are going to get.” Id. at 60.
      Donna D. Myers (Myers), a resident at the Garden Towers, testified Tenant
threatened her on an elevator on June 26, 2021. T.T. 8/24/22 at 64. Myers explained
the incident occurred after she got on the Garden Towers’ small elevator and Tenant
rushed in behind her. Id. at 65. The ride started out normally, until Tenant bragged
about a new, five-layered face mask and Myers did not respond. Id. at 66. Tenant
then “got extremely enraged at [Myers],” and began chanting about how someone
was going to kill her because she was not vaccinated. Id. at 66-67. Myers explained

                                          5
Tenant then began “violently shaking his arm, his great big fist and his index finger
in my face.” Id. at 67. Tenant then stopped, waited approximately twenty seconds,
and did the same thing a second time. Id. at 67-68. Myers was terrified and believed
Tenant would hurt or kill her on this elevator ride. Id. at 68-69. Myers requested to
be moved to a different building after the incident and was still fearful of Tenant at
the time she testified before the trial court. Id. at 68-70.
      Frankie Wolmeldorf (Wolmeldorf), a former resident of the Garden Towers,
testified that Tenant followed him around constantly and made him feel
uncomfortable. T.T. 8/24/22 at 74, 76-77. Wolmeldorf moved out of the Garden
Towers because of Tenant’s behavior. Id. at 78.
      Joseph Boston (Boston), a resident of Garden Towers, testified Tenant has
threatened him for years and will not leave him alone. T.T. 8/24/22 at 81. Boston
recalled one specific incident that occurred at a nearby grocery store. Id. Boston
drove to the grocery store and Tenant, who was riding his bicycle, followed Boston
into the grocery store parking lot. Id. at 82. Tenant got off his bicycle and told
Boston “[y]ou are nothing but an asshole and I am going to beat the shit out of you.”
Id. Tenant then “started picking his bicycle up and slamming it up and down and
using a bunch of profanity.” Id. Tenant ultimately returned to the Garden Towers
without physically assaulting Boston. Id. On multiple other occasions, Boston
witnessed Tenant stand beside another resident who is terminally ill with liver cancer
and mock her, saying “whoa, whoa. My liver is hurting.” Id. at 83. Noting that
Tenant is very strong, Boston explained that he lives in fear for his life and health
because he does not have a safe place to live. Id. at 83-84.
      The Housing Authority’s Executive Director (Executive Director) testified
that she was the hearing officer for Tenant’s appeal of the Termination Notice under

                                            6
the Housing Authority’s grievance policy. T.T. 8/24/22 at 88-89, 93. The Executive
Director explained that after she heard testimony in Tenant’s grievance appeal of the
Termination Notice, she concluded

       the residents were clearly fearful of living in the building. Again, they
       referred to [Tenant] as a bully on the playground and felt that he
       pr[e]yed on those who were most vulnerable in the building. . . . The
       majority of residents are either elderly and/or disabled. They are all
       low income. Most of them don’t have anywhere else to go, so they
       [are] fearful of losing their home.

       In my opinion, the evidence at that point established that [Tenant] had,
       in fact, engaged in serious and repeated violations of the [L]ease,
       mainly concerning the safety of the other residents.

Id. at 92-93. Executive Director confirmed she upheld the Termination Notice and
denied Tenant’s request for relief under the Housing Authority’s grievance policy.
Id. at 93.
       Tenant testified on his own behalf. See T.T. 8/24/22 at 103-54. Tenant denied
any wrongdoing for each incident the Housing Authority’s witnesses testified about
and gave his own version of the facts for some of the incidents. Id. at 109-29. Tenant
showed the trial court security camera footage, which did not have any sound, of
two of the incidents in question. Id. at 130-38. On cross examination, Tenant
admitted he was in the army, is 6ʹ 2ʺ tall, weighs 235 pounds, and lifts weights
regularly at a local gym. Id. at 138-39.
       When questioned about why the Housing Authority’s witnesses all testified to
facts which contradicted his testimony, Tenant asserted the other residents are part
of a conspiracy against him. Id. at 144. Tenant also asserted the Police Department
and the Housing Authority are part of this conspiracy. Id. at 147.      Tenant stated
there were two reasons for the conspiracy: jealousy and politics. Id. at 148. With

                                           7
respect to politics, Tenant asserted the conspirators were “anti-vaxxers and anti-
mask and . . . politically on the far right.” Id. With respect to jealousy, Tenant
claims he “won numerous art contests and [is] a self-taught artist” who has about
45-50 paintings in his room. Id. at 150. Tenant also claimed that “some [of his
paintings] are worth $10,000.” Id. Despite this claim, Tenant admitted he only ever
sold one piece of his artwork – for $40. Id. at 150-51.
       After reviewing the evidence, the trial court issued the following brief
findings of fact:

       1. [Tenant] did not cooperate with the reasonable requests of [the]
          Housing Authority staff regarding the grill and smoker at the
          pavilion in violation of Paragraph K (11) of the [Lease].

       2. [Tenant] did engage in criminal activity off the premises, which
          resulted in a guilty plea, in violation of Paragraph K (10) of the
          [Lease].

       3. [Tenant] did speak in an abusive manner towards one or more
          persons residing in [the Garden Towers] in violation of Paragraph
          K (11) of the [Lease].

O.R., Item No. 14. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Housing
Authority. See id. In the trial court’s opinion filed under Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court explained it based
its finding of fact on its conclusion the Housing Authority’s witnesses were credible
and “Tenant’s blanket denials of any improper behavior were not credible.” O.R.,
Item No. 23 at 5.
       Tenant appealed the trial court’s order to this Court.4 On appeal, Tenant
argues the trial court based its decision on insufficient evidence, and the trial court

4
   Tenant originally appealed to the Superior Court. However, by order filed November 10, 2022,
the Superior Court transferred the matter to this Court.

                                              8
committed legal errors in determining he violated Section K (10) and K (11) of the
Lease.
                                    II.    Analysis
      Our review of a non-jury trial verdict is limited to determining whether
substantial evidence supports the findings of the trial court and whether the trial
court committed an error in applying the law.            See Pottstown Sch. Dist. v.
Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 289 A.3d 1142, 1145 n.3 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2023) (citation omitted). We must give the trial judge’s findings of fact
“the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury.” Id. (citation omitted).
“We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner . . . and
will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact are not supported by
[substantial] evidence in the record.”       Id. (citation omitted). When the issue
“concerns a question of law, our scope of review is plenary,” meaning we look at
the entire record. Id.
A. Substantial Evidence
      We begin with Tenant’s argument the trial court’s findings are not supported
by substantial evidence. Tenant believes two of the Housing Authority’s witnesses
could not have been credible because security camera footage of the incidents
contradicts their testimony. First, we note Tenant acknowledged the security camera
footage did not include any sound. See T.T. 8/24/22 at 149. Second, we note the
trial court did not admit the security camera footage into evidence because Tenant
failed to include it in his pretrial statement. See id. at 153-55. Because the trial court
did not admit the security camera footage into evidence, we cannot consider it in
determining whether the trial court’s determination was based upon sufficient
evidence. See Pa.R.A.P. 1921 (providing that only original papers, exhibits, and

                                            9
transcripts filed in the trial court and certified docket entries “shall constitute the
record on appeal”); Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 586 n.12 (Pa. 1997) (appellate
courts cannot consider any matter which is not part of the record on appeal).
      To the extent Tenant argues the trial court watched the security camera
footage and those observations, combined with his testimony, should outweigh the
Housing Authority’s witnesses’ contradictory testimony, we reject Tenant’s
argument. In addition to observing the security camera footage, the trial court
observed Tenant and the Housing Authority’s witnesses as they explained what was
happening during the incidents in question. The trial court determined the Housing
Authority’s witnesses were credible and Tenant was not credible. We will not
disturb the trial court’s credibility and weight of the evidence determinations on
appeal. See Rice v. Compro Distrib., Inc., 901 A.2d 570, 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)
(“The trial court, as the finder of fact, has exclusive authority to weigh the evidence,
make credibility determinations, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence
presented.”).
      Considering the evidence, which is summarized above, in the light most
favorable to the Housing Authority as the verdict winner, we conclude the record
contained substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s determination. Therefore,
we reject Tenant’s argument that the trial court’s findings are not supported by
substantial evidence.
B. Section K (11) of the Lease
      Tenant also argues the trial court’s factual findings do not support its legal
conclusion that Tenant violated Section K (11) of the Lease because the terms
“cooperative,” “abusive,” and “threatening” in Section K (11) of the Lease are
vague. See Appellant’s Br. at 13. We construe a contract “according to the meaning

                                          10
of its language. The fundamental rule in construing a contract is to ascertain and
give effect to the intention of the parties. The intention of the parties must be
ascertained from the document itself, if its terms are clear and unambiguous.”
Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Riverside Sch. Dist., 739 A.2d 651, 654 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1999).
       We disagree with Tenant’s belief that Section K (11) of the Lease is
ambiguous and not clear. Tenant’s behavior, which made other Garden Towers
residents live in fear, was abusive, threatening, and not cooperative to his fellow
residents under any definition of those terms. Section K (11)’s plain language,
which reflects the Housing Authority’s intention for its residents to be cooperative
and respectful toward the Housing Authority staff and other residents, supports this
conclusion. Accordingly, we reject Tenant’s argument the trial court erred in
concluding Tenant violated Section K (11) of the Lease.5
                                      III.   Conclusion
       Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual findings, and the trial
court properly concluded Tenant violated Section K (11) of the Lease. Because this
violation alone entitled the Housing Authority to evict Tenant, we affirm the trial
court’s August 29, 2022 order entering judgment in favor of the Housing Authority
on its complaint in ejectment and breach of contract.

5
   Because we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant the Housing Authority’s complaint and
eject Tenant on the grounds that Tenant violated Section K (11) of the Lease, we need not evaluate
Tenant’s argument that the trial court’s factual findings do not support its legal conclusion that
Tenant also violated Section K (10) of the Lease. Nevertheless, we note that Section K (10) does
not clearly establish whether all off-premises criminal activity or only off-premises drug-related
criminal activity violates the Lease.

                                               11
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Housing Authority of the County of    :
Armstrong                             :
                                      :
          v.                          : No. 1413 C.D. 2022
                                      :
Joseph S. Gluz,                       :
                            Appellant :

PER CURIAM                           ORDER

      AND NOW, this 19th day of January 2024, the Court of Common Pleas of
Armstrong County’s August 29, 2022 order is hereby AFFIRMED.