Court Opinion

ID: 9411035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 17:26:08.920502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:02.326656
License: Public Domain

J-A14023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 TREVOR G. SOMMERFIELD                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 BART SPRINGER, CONRAD FLYNN,             :
 AND ANNETTE GREEN                        :
                                          :   No. 2611 EDA 2022
                                          :
 APPEAL OF: BART SPRINGER AND             :
 ANNETTE GREEN                            :

           Appeal from the Order Entered September 16, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Civil Division at No(s):
                                17-2695

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                               FILED JULY 25, 2023

      Appellants Bart Springer and Annette Green appeal from the order

entered by the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas on September 16,

2022, which denied post-trial relief following the non-jury verdict in favor of

Appellee Trevor G. Sommerfield in this landlord-tenant dispute. Upon review,

we dismiss the appeal due to substantial defects in Appellants’ brief that

preclude meaningful appellate review.

      A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our

disposition. Briefly, as gleaned from the trial court’s opinions and the record,

this case involves a dispute between Appellant Springer, who owned real

property located in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania (“the Building”), and Appellee
J-A14023-23

who subleased a portion of the Building from a third party, Anthony Stella.1

Stella leased part of the Building from Appellant Springer for the operation of

his restaurant (Restaurant). The term of the lease was from November 1,

2015 to October 31, 2018. The lease required Appellant Springer’s consent

to sublease and provided Stella the right to notice of any default 15 days prior

to termination. Stella also held the liquor license for the Restaurant.

       In July 2017, Appellee entered into an agreement with Stella to

purchase and operate the Restaurant, and Appellant Springer provided written

consent for Appellee to sublease the relevant portion of the Building until the

end of Stella’s lease term. Appellee intended to apply to transfer the liquor

license from Stella to himself.

       On October 6, 2017, Appellant Springer, accompanied by a constable,

evicted Appellee, without commencing a proceeding pursuant to the

Pennsylvania Landlord Tenant Act (PLTA)2 or providing Appellee or Stella with

notice of default. Appellant Springer claimed that Appellee was operating the

restaurant without a liquor license, which Appellant Springer asserted placed

him in legal jeopardy as the Building’s owner. Appellant Springer also alleged

____________________________________________

1 Stella acted through his company Antwon, Inc.

2 68 P.S. §§ 250.101 to 399.18. The PLTA “is a comprehensive regulatory
scheme governing the landlord and tenant relationship[,]” which is intended
to constitute “a complete and exclusive system in itself.”          Fraport
Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Allegheny Cnty. Airport Auth., ___ A.3d ___, 2023 PA
Super 77, *7 (filed May 9, 2023) (quoting 68 P.S. § 250.602) (emphasis
omitted).

                                           -2-
J-A14023-23

that Appellee sexually harassed Appellant Annette Green, an employee of the

Restaurant.

       In December 2017, Appellee filed a complaint against Appellants, which

he amended in July 2018, asserting claims under the PLTA, breach of contract,

trespass, and conversion.3

       Following a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a Decision and Verdict

in favor of Appellee on April 14, 2022, finding wrongful eviction under the

PLTA, breach of contract, and conversion of personal property.         The court

imposed damages on Appellants, jointly and severally, of approximately

$245,600, which included actual damages based on Appellee’s expenses to

acquire and operate the restaurant from August 2017 to October 2017; actual

damages for lost profits from October 2017 to November 2018; actual

damages to personal property in the form of inventory and equipment, which

the court imposed as treble damages under the PLTA; and attorney fees.

       In September 2022, Appellants filed a Motion for Post-trial Relief, which

the trial court denied. Appellants timely appealed. As ordered by the trial

court, Appellants filed a Pa.R.A.P 1925(b) Statement of Issues Raised on

Appeal, in which they raised over 30 issues. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the

trial court appropriately categorized the morass of issues into two general

____________________________________________

3 Appellee alleged that Appellant Green, inter alia, conspired with Appellant

Springer in regard to the eviction and conversion of property. He also named
Conrad Flynn as a defendant. Flynn took over operation of the Restaurant
after Appellee’s eviction. The court ultimately entered default judgment
against Flynn, who failed to file an answer and is not part of the current appeal.

                                           -3-
J-A14023-23

categories: challenges to the verdict and challenges to the damages.         The

court found that both sets of challenges failed. 4

       Before this Court, Appellants raise the following issues:

       1. Whether the lower court erred in awarding damages to
       [Appellee], who was not legally permitted by the Pennsylvania
       Liquor Control Board to dispense liquor, by his mere leasing the
       real property from Appellant Springer, while the liquor license was
       owned by a nonparty, Anthony Stella?

       2. Whether [Appellee’s] operation of the restaurant and selling
       liquor in the premises, without having first received the approval
       of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, was a violation of the
       law and the lease agreement?

       3. Whether [Appellee] also committed other acts in the real
       property, which were unlawful under the Commercial Lease
       Agreement with Antwon, Inc. and violations of Pennsylvania law?

____________________________________________

4 Addressing Appellants’ challenges  to the verdict, the court opined that its
decision was supported by the court’s finding Appellee and his witnesses more
credible than Appellants. The court emphasized that landlords must abide by
the PLTA rather than engaging in self-help evictions. Tr. Ct. Op., 12/7/22, at
6-7. It found that Appellant Springer breached the lease agreement by failing
to provide Appellee with notice of and an opportunity to cure any default. Id.
at 7. The court also rejected Appellants’ claim that the doctrine of unclean
hands barred Appellee’s recovery, noting that the doctrine only applied to
equitable not legal remedies as applicable to this case. Id. at 8.

        The court next considered Appellants’ challenge to the damages award.
It rejected Appellants’ argument that the court could not award damages for
lost liquor sales when Appellee did not have a license. Id. at 9-10. In support,
the court cited testimony that Appellee was in the process of transferring
Stella’s liquor license. Id. at 10. It further justified its award of damages for
expenses incurred in acquiring and operating the restaurant, concluding that
these damages placed Appellee back in the same place he would have been
absent the breach. Id. at 10-11. In addressing Appellants’ claims, the court
observed that the PLTA provides for the award of attorney fees and treble
damages. Id. at 12-13 (citing 68 P.S. § 250.505a(i)).

                                           -4-
J-A14023-23

      4. Whether [Appellant] Springer was legally entitled to retake
      possession of the property, without a breach of the peace, through
      the services of a duly authorized Pennsylvania [c]onstable?

      5. Whether trial court erred and abused its discretion by finding
      that the Appell[ee] met his burden of proof seeking attorney’s fees
      pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.[ § ]2503?

      6. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit an error of law
      where it appears from a review of the record that there is no
      evidence to support the [c]ourt’s findings?

      7. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit an error of law
      in failing to find that the Appellant[] Green, had no duty or
      obligation recognized by law, to [Appellee?]

Appellants’ Brief at 3-4.

                                       A.

      We conclude that we are unable to review Appellants’ numerous claims

due to the substantial defects in their brief. “This Court may quash or dismiss

an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882

A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (requiring appellate briefs

to conform to the rules “in all material respects”). Importantly, the Rules

require parties to provide citation to the record in both the “Statement of the

Case” and in the Argument section of the brief to allow for meaningful

appellate review of the issues presented.      Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4), 2119(c).

Moreover, Rule 2119 mandates that the argument portion of an appellate brief

be developed with citation to relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P 2119(a)-(b). This

Court will not “develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the

record to find evidence to support an argument; instead, we will deem [the]

                                      -5-
J-A14023-23

issue[s] to be waived.”       Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super.

2018). “[W]hen 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.”      Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.

2007).

                                               B.

       Both the Statement of Case and the Argument sections of Appellants’

brief lack the requisite citation to the lengthy electronic record in this case,

which spans over 1100 pages. Indeed, in claiming that the trial court erred

in making various factual and credibility determinations, Appellants fail to

direct this Court to the relevant testimony. Moreover, Appellants’ Brief merely

cites statues and cases providing broad legal theories without applying the

law to the facts of the instant case. In sum, Appellants’ violations of the Rules

of Appellate Procedure preclude meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we

are constrained to dismiss this appeal.5
____________________________________________

5  Even if Appellants had properly developed their argument, we would
conclude that the record supports the trial court’s holdings, which are based
upon the court’s credibility determinations. We reiterate our deference to the
findings of a trial court following a non-jury trial:

       Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is
       to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported
       by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed
       error in any application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial
       judge must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the
       verdict of the jury. We consider the evidence in a light most
       favorable to the verdict winner.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-A14023-23

       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/25/2023

____________________________________________

Davis v. Borough of Montrose, 194 A.3d 597, 605 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(citation omitted). “[T]his Court is not permitted to reexamine the weight and
credibility determination[s] or substitute our judgment for that of the fact
finder.” Id. (citation omitted). In this case, the record supports the trial
court’s findings and conclusions.

                                           -7-