Court Opinion

ID: 9939804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 19:09:19.694342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:56.740659
License: Public Domain

J-A03037-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  CHATHAM PARK SECTION IV LP                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  EDWIN FISCHL                                 :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   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

       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.

                                           -2-
J-A03037-24

       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.

                                           -3-
J-A03037-24

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.

                                           -4-
J-A03037-24

       [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.

                                           -5-
J-A03037-24

     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 non-
     negligent 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 non-
     negligent circumstances, either as they relate to the appellant or

                                      -6-
J-A03037-24

      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.

                                      -7-
J-A03037-24

DATE: 02/12/2024

                   -8-