Court Opinion

ID: 9375710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 17:08:37.019839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.097982
License: Public Domain

J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 JBRC OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC AND        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 JUST BELIEVE RECOVERY CENTER OF      :        PENNSYLVANIA
 CARBONDALE, LLC                      :
                                      :
                 Appellants           :
                                      :
                                      :
           v.                         :
                                      :   No. 98 MDA 2022
                                      :
 PATRICK J. KELLY FAMILY TRUST,       :
 SAPIENT PROVIDENCE LLC, AND          :
 BRETON EQUITY COMPANY CORP.          :

             Appeal from the Order Entered January 7, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at
                        No(s): 2018-CV-02236

 JBRC OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC AND      :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 JUST BELIEVE RECOVERY CENTER OF    :          PENNSYLVANIA
 CARBONDALE, LLC                    :
                                    :
                                    :
            v.                      :
                                    :
                                    :
 PATRICK J. KELLY FAMILY TRUST,     :     No. 223 MDA 2022
 SAPIENT PROVIDENCE LLC, AND        :
 BRETON EQUITY COMPANY CORP.        :
                                    :
                                    :
 APPEAL OF: PATRICK J. KELLY FAMILY :
 TRUST                              :
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

                Appeal from the Order Entered January 7, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at
                           No(s): 2018-CV-02236

BEFORE:      DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                                FILED: FEBRUARY 28, 2023

        JBRC of Pennsylvania, LLC (“JBRC, LLC”) and Just Believe Recovery

Center of Carbondale, LLC (“Just Believe Recovery Center”) (collectively, the

“JB Entities”) and Patrick J. Kelly Family Trust (the “Trust”) each filed appeals

from the January 7, 2022 order that struck a writ of execution entered in favor

of Patrick J. Kelly Family Trust (the “Trust”), found that the JB Entities were

entitled to a credit against money they owed to the Trust, and lifted a stay of

the enforcement of an ejectment judgment.                In its appeal, the JB Entities

challenge numerous prior orders.1              In the Trust’s appeal, it challenges the

court’s decision to strike the writ of execution and to award the JB Entities a

credit against the Trust’s monetary damages. It also asserts that the appeal

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 These orders include: (1) the October 25, 2018 order sustaining the Trust’s
preliminary objections to three of five counts of the JB Entities’ complaint; (2)
the December 11, 2019 order entering judgment on the pleadings against the
JB Entities as to the remaining counts in the complaint and in favor of the
Trust on its four counterclaims, and entering judgment in ejectment against
JBRC; (3) the July 31, 2020 order conditionally granting the JB Entities’
request for stay relief on the judgment in ejectment; and (4) the June 14,
2021 order determining the monetary damages owed to the Trust on its
counterclaims and modifying the conditions of stay relief.

                                           -2-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

that the JB Entities filed is untimely.2 After careful review, we quash the JB

Entities’ appeal as untimely and affirm in part and reverse in part the January

7, 2022 order.

        The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. In September

2014, JBRC, LLC, purchased real estate formerly used as a hospital (the

“Property”). JBRC, LLC, leased the Property to Just Believe Recovery Center

which then operated a mental health and substance abuse treatment facility

at the Property.3

        On April 10, 2017, the JB Entities executed a second mortgage loan

agreement (“Loan Agreement”) with the Trust for $800,000.              The Loan

Agreement established a repayment schedule that provided, inter alia, that

the JB Entities would make their final payment on the mortgage approximately

one year later, on April 9, 2018.          A Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure (“Deed”)

secured the mortgage and the Loan Agreement provided that the Trust could

file the Deed in the event of default.

        Relevant to the instant appeal, the Loan Agreement defined the failure

to make a timely payment under the terms of the Note or the Loan

____________________________________________

2   We have consolidated these appeals sua sponte.

3 On November 20, 2014, Just Believe executed a mortgage on the Property
in favor of named-defendant Sapient Provident, LLC (“Sapient”). Sapient
recorded the mortgage on November 25, 2014. On February 26, 2018,
Sapient assigned the mortgage to named-defendant Breton Equity Company
Corp. (“Breton”) for $550,000.

                                           -3-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

Agreements as an “Event of Default.”4            The Loan Agreement provided

remedies for an Event of Default which changed depending on when the

default occurred. The Loan Agreement specified that the failure to make all

payments due under the Note “on or before the Final Payment Date [of April

9, 2018] shall constitute an Event of Default hereunder and shall entitle [the

Trust] to all rights and remedies set forth herein, in the Note or in any [] of

the other Loan Documents.”5

        The JB Entities failed to make payments as required by the Loan

Agreement. On February 13, 2018, the parties entered into a Forbearance

and Release Agreement (“Forbearance Agreement”).           In the Forbearance

Agreement, the JB Entities acknowledged that it was in default of the Loan

Agreement.       The parties agreed that, upon the JB Entities’ payment of

$50,000, the Trust would refrain from exercising any of its remedies that the

Loan Agreement provided the Trust as a result of the JB Entities’ default of

the Loan Agreement. The JB Entities also agreed to pay the Trust the $50,000

immediately. In exchange, the Trust agreed that the JB Entities could remain

in possession of the Property and the Trust would wait until March 15, 2018

to exercise any of its remedies.6 Of most significance, the JB Entities agreed

to release the Trust from all obligations and liability under the Loan
____________________________________________

4   Loan Agreement, 4/10/17, at Art. VII ¶ 7.1.

5   Id. at Art. VII ¶ 7.1(a).

6   Forbearance Agreement, 2/13/18, at 1.

                                           -4-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

Agreement, including the obligation to wait until April 9, 2018, to file the

Deed.7

       The JB Entities did not cure their payment default during the forbearance

period. Accordingly, on March 16, 2018, the Trust exercised its right to file

the Deed.

Procedural History Relevant to the Judgment against the JB Entities

       On April 13, 2018, the JB Entities filed a five-count complaint asserting

that the Trust violated the terms of the Loan Agreement by prematurely

recording the Deed.8, 9 In particular, the JB Entities claimed that because it

had not committed an “Event of Default” as defined in the Loan Agreement,

the Trust “illegally” filed the Deed on March 16, 2018, “before the [f]inal

[p]ayment [d]ate [of April 9, 2018] and in violation of the terms of the [] Loan

[Agreement], despite [the JB Entities] having complied with the terms of the

____________________________________________

7 See id. at 1-2 (releasing the Trust from “any and all obligations . . . held by
[the JB Entities] . . . related to . . . the substance of the terms and obligations
therein provided [in the Loan Documents].”).

8 In particular, the JB Entities asserted claims for: (1) breach of contract of
the Loan Agreement; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) fraud in the inducement; (4)
quiet title; and (5) injunctive relief.

9 The JB Entities asserted their quiet title claim also against Sapient and
Breton, and Sapient subsequently filed crossclaims against Breton and the
Trust. Those claims have been resolved or withdrawn and Sapient and Breton
are not parties to this appeal.

                                           -5-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

Forbearance Agreement.”10          The JB Entities concluded that through these

actions, the Trust unlawfully acquired ownership of the Property.

        The Trust filed preliminary objections to the complaint. On October 25,

2018, the trial court sustained two of the objections and dismissed those

counts of the complaint.        In particular, the trial court concluded that the

Forbearance Agreement authorized the recordation of the Deed at any time

after March 15, 2018.           The court also concluded that “there was an

acknowledged default by the Terms of the Forbearance [] Agreement and by

the execution of the document and performance of its payment agreement by

[JB Entities].”11

        The Trust then filed an answer and new matter to the remaining counts

of the complaint. The Trust also asserted counterclaims for: (1) a declaratory

judgment that the JB Entities were precluded from obtaining any relief; (2)

ejectment of the Recovery Center from the Property because the Trust did not

have notice of the Recovery Center’s lease with JBRC, LLC; (3) monetary

damages for breach of the Forbearance Agreement; and (4) counsel fees and

costs based on the Loan Agreement and/or 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(6), (7), and/or

(9).

        The JB Entities filed preliminary objections to the Trust’s counterclaims,

which the trial court overruled on March 1, 2019.

____________________________________________

10   Complaint, 4/13/18, at ¶¶ 20-21.

11   Trial Ct. Order, 10/25/18, at 3 (unpaginated).

                                           -6-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

       On May 5, 2019, the parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the

pleadings. Following a hearing, on December 11, 2019, the trial court entered

judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Trust on its counterclaim and against

the JB Entities on the remaining counts of their complaint. The court, thus,

entered a judgment of ejectment against the JB Entities and in favor of the

Trust. The court also entered a judgment of monetary damages against the

JB Entities and in favor of the Trust, but, at that time, it did not fix the amount

of monetary damages to which the Trust was entitled.

       On May 6, 2020, the Trust filed a motion for assessment of monetary

damages pertaining to the judgment in its favor on its breach of contract

claim, including for the fair rental value of the Property and a request for

attorney’s fees.

       Following a hearing on the motion, on July 31, 2020, the trial court

granted the Trust’s request for monetary damages. In particular, it ordered

the JB Entities to pay the Trust an unspecified amount of counsel fees and

directed the Trust to submit a proposed order for a money judgment

consistent with its award of counsel fees.12

       On August 31, 2020, the Trust submitted to the trial court a proposed

order for the money judgment in its favor.13

____________________________________________

12The court did not award the Trust any monetary damages on its breach of
contract claim.

13 The Trust submitted the proposed order as part of the joint motion for
clarification of the July 31, 2020 order discussed, infra.

                                           -7-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

       On June 14, 2021, the trial court entered an order awarding the Trust

$405,739 in monetary damages for counsel fees. Although this order resolved

all of the claims of both parties by entering final judgments—one judgment

for monetary damages and one judgment for ejectment—neither party

appealed from this order.

Procedural History Relevant to Enforcement of the Trust’s Money
Judgment

       On August 19, 2021, the Trust attempted to enforce its money judgment

against the JB Entities by issuing and directing the sheriff’s service of a writ

of execution to PNC Bank where the JB Entities maintained a corporate

account.

       The next day, the JB Entities filed an emergency motion to stay and set

aside the execution of the writ of execution on the money judgment.14 They

also filed a claim for exemption from levy and attachment of their PNC Bank

account, alleging that the funds in the account were exempt from levy

pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8127(a).

       On September 15, 2021, the Trust filed a response to the JB Entities’

motion to set aside the writ asserting, inter alia, that Section 8127(a) was

inapplicable to the instant facts.

____________________________________________

14The JB Entities claimed that the stay was warranted because the Trust failed
to provide them with proper notice of the writ as required by the Rules of Civil
Procedure and because the JB Entities’ personal property was exempt from
attachment. Motion, 8/20/21, at ¶ 13.

                                           -8-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

       On January 7, 2022, the trial court entered an order striking the Trust’s

writ of execution that it had filed against the JB Entities’ bank account at PNC.

The court determined that the JB Entities’ PNC bank account was exempt from

execution pursuant to Section 8127(a) because the funds held therein were

intended for the purpose of paying the wages of the JB Entities’ employees.15

Procedural History Relevant to Stay of Judgment of Ejectment

       Meanwhile, following the court’s December 11, 2019 determination that

the Trust was entitled to a judgment in ejectment, on January 3, 2020, the JB

Entities filed a motion to stay the enforcement of the judgment in ejectment.

The Trust opposed entry of a stay, but also argued that, if the court imposed

a stay, it should order as a condition of remaining in possession of the Property

that the JB Entities pay rent to the Trust.

       On July 31, 2020, the trial court issued an order granting the JB Entities

a stay from the enforcement of the judgment of ejectment on the condition

that they pay rental payments of $20,000 per month to the Trust in addition

to all taxes, maintenance, insurance, and utilities. The trial court also ordered

that the Trust receive rental payments from the JB Entities’ sub-tenants16 and

be responsible for all structural maintenance.

____________________________________________

15 As discussed, infra, the trust has filed an appeal from this order claiming,
inter alia, that the trial court misapplied Section 8127(a).

16 Wayne Memorial Hospital and Geisinger Medical Center were sub-tenants
at the time and paid monthly rental rents of $9,920 and $1,807.58,
respectively.

                                           -9-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

      On August 31, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion for clarification of

the court’s July 31, 2020 order staying enforcement of the Trust’s ejectment

judgment. The parties sought clarification regarding, inter alia, which party

should shoulder which of the maintenance expenses and utility fees on the

Property and whether the award of rental payments from the JB Entities and

their sub-tenants to the Trust was retroactive or prospective.

      On June 14, 2021, the trial court issued an order clarifying the terms of

the stay of the enforcement of the ejectment judgment. In particular, the

court clarified the financial responsibilities of the parties with respect to the

maintenance, taxes, and expenses arising from ownership and use of the

Property. The court also explained that the JB Entities and their sub-tenants

owed monthly rent payments retroactive to December 10, 2019—the date on

which the court entered judgment in ejectment in favor of the Trust. The

court further ordered that the stay of the enforcement of the ejectment

judgment remain in effect until further notice.

      On August 19, 2021, the JB Entities filed a motion for assessment of

damages based on the alleged failure of the Trust to, inter alia, maintain the

Property in accordance with the terms of the court order staying the

enforcement of the ejectment judgment.

      On September 15, 2021, the Trust filed an answer to the JB Entities’

motions and asserted that it was the JB Entities who had not complied with

the terms of the court’s orders by failing to make monthly rent payments on

and after April 2021.

                                     - 10 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

      On January 7, 2022, the trial court entered an order finding that the

Trust had failed to maintain the Property in the condition that the trial court

had ordered when it stayed the execution of the ejectment judgment.

Therefore, the court concluded that the JB Entities were entitled to an offset

of $299,746.71 against the money it owed to the Trust.

      It is from this order addressing the conditions of the stay of the

enforcement of the ejectment judgment that both parties filed their notices of

appeal. They and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                       A.

      In its appeal, JB Entities raise the following issues for our review:

      1. Did the trial court err when it sustained the [Trust’s]
         preliminary objections to Count I (breach of contract) of [the
         JB Entities’] Complaint upon finding that the [Deed] was not
         prematurely filed, when the Deed was recorded prior to the
         Final Payment Date and contrary to the Non-payment
         provisions in the applicable loan documents?

      2. Did the trial court err when it sustained the [Trust’s]
         preliminary objections to Count II (unjust enrichment) of [the
         JB Entities’] Complaint when the Deed was recorded before the
         Final Payment Date and not other “Event of Default” occurred
         to justify the [] Trust recording the Deed?

      3. Did the trial court err when it sustained the [Trust’s]
         preliminary objections to Count III (fraud in the inducement)
         of [the JB Entities’] Complaint when the [] Trust made
         misrepresentations regarding the Forbearance [] Agreement?

      4. Did the trial court err by granting the [] Trust’s Motion for
         Judgment on the Pleadings when the [] Trust recorded the
         Deed prior to the Final Payment Date set by the applicable loan
         documents?

      5. Did the trial court err by denying [the JB Entities’] Motion for
         Judgment on the Pleadings when the [] Trust recorded the

                                     - 11 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

          Deed prior to the Final Payment Date as set by the applicable
          loan documents?

       6. Did the trial court err by awarding attorney’s fees, monetary
          damages[,] and rent to the [] Trust based upon the above-
          referenced prior findings?

JB Entities’ Brief at 14-15.

       The Trust raises the following issues on appeal:

       1. Did the lower court erroneously strike a writ of execution that
          was served on a bank account?

       2. In determining a “credit against monies owed by [the JB
          Entities] to the [] Trust,” did the lower court make an untimely
          and incorrect determination of the amount remaining to be paid
          in order to satisfy an award of counsel fees or did it make an
          irrelevant determination as to the extent to which [the JB
          Entities] had complied with the conditions of a stay order
          pertaining to enforcement of a judgment in ejectment, the term
          or effect of which had expired?

       3. Assuming that the determinations made in the June 14, 202[1
          o]rder are subject to appellate review, did the lower court fail
          to address the [] Trust’s motion for assessment of damages on
          its counterclaims and properly calculate the extent of damages
          sustained by the [] Trust as a result of [ the JB Entities’] failure
          to abide by the terms of the [Forbearance] Agreement?

Trust’s Appellant Brief at 4-5.17

                                               B.

       Before we reach the issues presented by the parties, we must first

determine whether we have jurisdiction over the JB Entities’ appeal, which
____________________________________________

17 On March 10, 2022, the Trust filed an application to dismiss the JB Entities’
appeal as untimely. On May 5, 2022, this Court denied the Trust’s application
to dismiss without prejudice to the Trust to re-raise the issue of timeliness in
its brief to this Court. In the Trust’s briefs—one filed as appellant and one as
appellee—the Trust has reasserted its argument that we should quash this
appeal as untimely. See Trust’s Appellee Brief at 13-19; Trust’s Appellant
Brief at 4, 15-19.

                                          - 12 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

challenges the trial court’s imposition of a monetary judgment and a judgment

of ejectment against the JB Entities and in favor of the Trust.

      A final order is, inter alia, one that “disposes of all claims and of all

parties[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1). For an appeal to be timely, the appealing

party must file a notice of appeal within thirty days after the entry of the order

from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). The failure to do so results

in waiver of review. See Morningstar v. Hoban, 819 A.2d 1191, 1194 (Pa.

Super. 2003) (reiterating the well-established principle that “the failure to file

a timely appeal will divest this Court of jurisdiction.”).

      Relevant to this consideration, we reiterate that, following the court’s

orders of October 25, 2019, December 11, 2019, and July 31, 2020, the trial

court entered an order on June 14, 2021 that fixed the amount of attorney’s

fees owed to the Trust. At this point, the Trust had obtained both a judgment

of ejectment in its favor and against the JB Entities and an ascertained

monetary judgment in its favor and against the JB Entities. Thus, as a result

of the June 14, 2021 order, the Trust had a final order that granted the Trust

a judgment in ejectment and a monetary judgment in its favor and against JB

Entities. The JB Entities failed to appeal the entry of these judgments within

thirty days of the entry of the final order and, thus, we now lack jurisdiction

to review any challenges to them.

      The JB Entities argue, however, that the final order in this matter was

not the order imposing the monetary judgment and the judgment in

ejectment, but rather the order that concerned the Trust’s attempts to execute

                                      - 13 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

its judgments. The JB Entities have provided us with no legal authority, and

we have found none, that tolls the appeal period until a party who holds a

judgment against another party attempts to execute on the judgment. Rather

the case law is clear that a judgment is a final order from which a party must

appeal.     The execution of that judgment is a separate and distinct

proceeding.18

       Because the JB Entities failed to appeal from the June 14, 2021 final

order within thirty days as required by Pa.R.A.P. 903, the JB Entities lost the

____________________________________________

18 We observe that, because a party who holds a judgment may execute on it
at any time, or not at all, it defies reason to toll the period for challenging the
underlying judgment until the party who holds it decides, in its discretion, to
execute on it.

                                          - 14 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

right to challenge the underlying judgments.19, 20 We, therefore, quash the JB

Entities’ appeal.21

                                               C.

       With respect to the Trust’s appeal, the Trust first asserts that the trial

court erred when it concluded that the JB Entities’ PNC Bank account was

exempt from execution for purposes of enforcing their money judgment and

as a result, struck the writ of execution that the Trust had served on PNC.

Trust’s Brief at 19-20. The Trust argues that the statute that the trial court

relied upon only exempts from attachment those bank accounts that consist

of “wages, salaries and commissions of individuals” when the judgment is
____________________________________________

19We note that if the JB Entities had raised any issues challenging the January
7, 2022 order awarding it a credit, striking the Trust’s writ of execution of the
money judgment, and lifting the stay of the judgment of ejectment, those
challenges would have been timely. The JB Entities, however, only challenged
the underlying judgments.

20 The trial court noted that the January 7, 2022 order striking the Trust’s writ
of execution, awarding the JB Entities a credit, and lifting the stay of the
judgment of ejectment was a “final order.” We agree that the order is final
as to its contents, i.e., the court’s decision to strike the Trust’s writ of
execution against the JB Entities’ bank account, to award the JB Entities a
credit, and to lift the stay preventing the Trust from enforcing the judgment
of ejectment. The January 7, 2022 order was not, however, final as to the
underlying judgments; rather, as discussed, supra, the court had entered the
final order disposing of the claims between the parties regarding the
judgments themselves nearly seven months earlier on June 14, 2021.

21 Even if the JB Entities had timely appealed the underlying judgments, we
would conclude that they are not entitled to relief as, pursuant to the terms
of the Forbearance Agreement, they admitted they were in default of the Loan
Agreement and released the Trust from liability and any of the obligations set
forth in the Loan Agreement, such as the date upon which the Trust was
authorized to file the Deed.

                                          - 15 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

against an employee who has a right to those “wages, salaries and

commissions of individuals.” Id. (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 8127(a)). The Trust

further argues that the statute does not apply to the instant facts because the

Trust’s judgment is not against an individual employee, but the JB Entities,

corporate entities. Id. at 19. We agree.

      This issue implicates the interpretation of Section 8127 of the Judicial

Code titled “Personal earnings exempt from process.”       42 Pa.C.S. § 8127.

Statutory interpretation is a question of law, therefore, our standard of review

is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514,

517 (Pa. 2013).

      Section 8127(a) provides, in relevant part, that the “wages, salaries and

commissions of individuals shall while in the hands of the employer be

exempt from any attachment, execution or other process[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. §

8127(a) (emphasis added).       The defense to the execution on a money

judgment does not apply where, inter alia, the judgment arises in a divorce

or support action. Id. at 8127(a)(1)-(3).

      In discussing the application of Section 8127(a), this Court has observed

that “[t]he defense of exemption of wages is designed to protect the wage

earner.” Jefferson Bank v. J. Roy Morris and Scanforms, Inc., 639 A.2d

474, 477 (Pa. Super. 1994). See also E. Lithographing Corp. v. Neville,

198 A.2d 391, 393 (Pa. Super. 1964) (“The obvious purpose of the act is to

protect earnings[.]”) (citation omitted)). Thus, in deciding whether funds are

exempt from attachment or garnishment pursuant to Section 8127(a), the

                                     - 16 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

court must consider, inter alia, whether “the garnishee is an employer of the

judgment debtor.” Id.22 In other words, the statute applies when a creditor

seeks to execute on a judgment against a debtor by garnishing the debtor’s

wages from the debtor’s employer. Here the Trust holds a monetary judgment

against a corporate entity, the JB Entities, and not against an individual. The

language of the statute is clear that the exemption from garnishment applies

only to judgments against individuals. This conclusion is further supported by

the exceptions to the statutory defense—they apply in situations that could

only pertain to individuals, i.e., judgments obtained against a spouse or parent

in domestic relations cases.23

       Accordingly, the trial court erred in determining that the JB Entities’ PNC

Bank account was exempt from execution and erred in striking the writ of

execution that the Trust served on the JB Entities’ PNC bank account. We,

therefore, reverse the portion of the order striking the writ of execution.

       In its next issue, the Trust claims that the trial court erred in awarding

the JB Entities a “credit” against the monetary judgment entered in favor of

the Trust. Trust’s Brief at 20-23.

       “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each

question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of
____________________________________________

22A “garnishee” is one who has money or property in its possession belonging
to a judge debtor.

23Additionally, the JB Entities’ PNC Bank account is not “in the hands of” an
employer of a person against whom there is a judgment as required to invoke
the statutory defense.

                                          - 17 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

pertinent authority.”   Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.

Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2119

(listing argument requirements for appellate briefs). This Court “will not act

as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.

Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful

appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to

be waived.”    In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation

omitted).

      In its Brief, the Trust fails to provide an adequate legal framework within

which this Court can conduct meaningful appellate review. In the Argument

section of its Brief, the Trust has not provided citation to any legal authority

to support its argument. Because the Trust has not supported its claims with

discussion and analysis of pertinent authority, this Court is unable to evaluate

whether the trial court erred in awarding the JB Entities a credit against the

Trust’s monetary damages. Accordingly, we conclude that this issue is waived

and we, thus, affirm that portion of the January 7, 2022 order.

      In the Trust’s final issue, it asserts that when the trial court entered the

monetary judgment in its favor, the court failed to “properly calculate the

extent of damages sustained” by the Trust as a result of the JB Entities’ breach

of the Forbearance Agreement. Trust’s Brief at 24-25. Because this issue,

like the issues raised by the JB Entities in their appeal, arises from the court’s

order entering a monetary judgment in favor of the Trust and against the JB

Entities, the Trust was required to challenge the amount of the monetary

                                     - 18 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22

judgment within thirty days of entry of that order. The Trust did not do so.

Accordingly, this claim is waived.

      JB Entities’ appeal, docketed at 98 MDA 2022, quashed. Order affirmed

in part and reversed in part. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/28/2023

                                     - 19 -