Court Opinion

ID: 9555308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 16:10:15.453272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:16.116695
License: Public Domain

J-A10001-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  EVERETT ABITBOL AND VALERIE                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  ABITBOL                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  TRACEY GERHART AND JAMES                     :
  GERHART                                      :   No. 2423 EDA 2022
                                               :
                       Appellants              :

               Appeal from the Order Entered September 21, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                       Civil Division at No(s): 200701934

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                           FILED AUGUST 11, 2023

       Everett and Valerie Abitbol rented their Philadelphia residence to Tracey

and James Gerhart. When the Gerharts broke the two-year lease, the Abitbols

initiated this action for breach of contract seeking damages in the form of

unpaid rent, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The Gerharts now appeal from

the order finding in favor of the Abitbols and directing the Gerharts to pay

$248,297.98.

       After being denied a stay in the trial court, the Gerharts filed an

Emergency Motion for Supersedeas to this Court. We issued an order granting

a stay, pending the resolution of this appeal. See Order 12/21/2022. The trial

court provided a comprehensive account of the procedural and factual history

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A10001-23

of the case which we need not repeat. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/22/2022,

at 1-7.

      The Gerharts raise the following issues for our review on appeal:

      1) Did the court err in not finding that it lacked jurisdiction or
         power under the City of Philadelphia Ordinance to enter a
         verdict for Plaintiff due to the lack of rental licensing?
      2) Did the lower court err in its handling of the application of
         evidence and burden of proof in the City of Philadelphia
         ordinances?
      3) Did the court err in permitting Plaintiff’s attorney’s bill to stand
         without modification?

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (unnecessary capitalizations omitted).

      After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the Honorable Michele

D. Hangley’s well-reasoned opinion, we conclude the Gerharts’ issues merit

no relief. The trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion effectively disposes of

the questions presented. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/22/2022, at 5-11.

(Finding: the Abitbols’ testimony from an accountant and real estate agent

was sufficient to establish the existence of the appropriate rental licensing and

prove they satisfied the city’s requirements; there was no need to reach the

question of burden of proof regarding the documents, but, if the burden did

lay with the Abitbols, they satisfied it; the attorneys’ fees were appropriate

and the length of time spent working on the case was commensurate with the

defense mounted by the Gerharts). We affirm on the basis of the trial court’s

opinion. Based on this decision, we lift the stay that was issued pending the

resolution of this appeal.

      Order affirmed. Stay lifted.

                                       -2-
J-A10001-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/11/2023

                          -3-