Opinion
2075 EDA 2023 J-S47040-23
01-10-2024
B & E REAL ESTATE II v. PAUL LANGENBACH Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered May 12, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2022-25082
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]
MEMORANDUM
STEVENS, P.J.E.
Appellant Paul Langenbach appeals pro se from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, which granted Appellee B & E Real Estate II's motion for judgment on the pleadings in this ejectment action. We dismiss this appeal.
The relevant facts and procedural history have been aptly set forth by the trial court as follows:
Appellant obtained title by deed to the real property [at issue] on November 15, 2005. The deed was properly recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Montgomery County. On November 4, 2022, Appellee purchased the property at a sheriff's sale and received title by deed. The deed was properly recorded in the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds Office on November 15, 2022. Although Appellant does not
contest that the property was purchased by Appellee, he has continued to reside in the property since the sheriff's sale.
On December 28, 2022, Appellee filed a Complaint in Ejectment with the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. On January 25, 2023, Appellant filed an answer with new matter to Appellee's complaint. Appellant's new matter does not contest that Appellee is the legal and record owner of the property. Appellee replied to Appellant's new matter on March 9, 2023, and Appellee also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant replied to Appellee's motion on March 28, 2023. Appellant continues to reside in the property.
On May 12, 2023, the [trial] court entered an order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Appellee. On May 21, 2023, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the [trial] court's order, and [on May 24, 2023, Appellant] was directed to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within twenty-one (21) days. On June 13, 2023, the [trial] court received Appellant's 1925(b) statement. [On August 1, 2023, the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.]Trial Court Opinion, filed 8/1/23, at 1-2.
In its opinion, the trial court indicated that Appellant's answers to the ejectment complaint essentially affirmed all of Appellee's allegations or denied them inadequately as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1029. Id. The trial court noted that Appellant "concedes that Appellee has proper title." Id. at 4. Further, since "both parties agree that Appellee is the owner of the property, and as Appellee's pleadings and exhibits establish that it has a right to immediate possession, a trial would be fruitless, and Appellee is entitled to ejectment as a matter of law." Id. at 4-5.
Initially, we note that, in the case sub judice, Appellant has proceeded pro se through this matter, and continues to do so on appeal. Although this Court will "liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, [an] appellant it not entitled to any particular advantage because he lacks legal training." Elliot-Greenleaf, P.C. v. Rothstein, 255 A.3d 539, 542 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citation omitted).
The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure mandate that a brief submitted by a party - whether counseled or pro se - "shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of [the] rules as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit[.]" Pa.R.A.P. 2101. If the defects in the brief are substantial, "the appeal…may be quashed or dismissed." Id. Rule 2111 sets forth the required sections in an appellate brief, including a statement of jurisdiction, the order on appeal, a statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the questions involved, a statement of the case, a summary of the argument, argument of the issues raised, and a conclusion. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(6), (8)-(9). Rules 2114 through 2119 provide further detail as to the information required in each section. See Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119.
Here, in his five-page appellate brief, while Appellant attempted to structure his brief to comply with the Rules, he has provided this Court with no developed, coherent argument. Specifically, the entire "Summary of Argument" portion of his brief is as follows (verbatim):
A Complaint in Ejectment is a specific mechanism to address situations in which the occupying party has no legal or equitable interest in the property. It is possible for an occupying party to establish equitable rights in several ways including entering into a written or oral agreement or arrangement with the current legal owner. Such situations may ultimately be contractual but are not
the "squatter" possessions that are envisioned to be addressed by ejectment proceedings.Appellant's Brief at 4.
Moreover, the entire "Argument" section of his brief is as follows (verbatim):
Ejectment is an action filed by a lawful owner against someone who has unlawful possession. This is not the case here. While Appellee may be the lawful owner, he has established a unique situation in which he has allowed the Appellant to have the equitable right to remain in the property under the express terms of the Agreement to Vacate. The conditions of that exchange have not been met placing the Appellant in the untenable position of not being able to move out as he had planned.
Additionally, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should not have been granted as there are significant contested issues which would prevent a situation in which "the moving party's right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise." Conrad v. Bundy, 777 A.2d 108 (Pa.Super. 2001).Appellant's Brief at 4-5.
As is evident, aside from bald assertions of error, Appellant has not developed a meaningful appellate argument. Further, aside from a general citation regarding the appropriate standard of review, Appellant has set forth no relevant legal authority. It is well-settled that this Court "will not consider the merits of an argument, which fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority. Failure to cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal." In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa.Super. 2012). See Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149 (Pa.Super. 1982). "The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority." Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citations omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (setting forth requirements for the argument portion of appellate briefs).
As this Court has held:
When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof. The Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly provide that an appeal may be quashed [or dismissed] "if the defects are in the brief…of the appellant and are substantial[.]" Pa.R.A.P. 2101.Sanford, 445 A.2d at 150-51 (citing Commonwealth v. Holcomb, 396 A.2d 29 (Pa.Super. 1978)) (other citations omitted). See Simeon v. Laniewski, No. 162 MDA 2022, 2022 WL 4392751, at *3 (Pa.Super. 9/23/22) (unpublished memorandum) (dismissing the appeal and holding that "[p]articularly troublesome is [the] [a]ppellant's failure to provide any discussion of her claims on appeal, or case law supporting her right to relief. Even a liberal view of [the] [a]ppellant's brief…does not remedy the significant deficiencies.").
We note that, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), unpublished non-precedential decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value.
In the case sub judice, Appellant's brief is devoid of any coherent argument, relevant controlling case law, or analysis under the facts of this case. "This Court's appellate function is to correct legal errors made by the trial court. It is not our duty or our prerogative to give pro se litigants a 'do over,' based upon their ignorance of the judicial system or our Rules of Appellate Procedure." Commonwealth v. Hoffman, No. 1288 MDA 2020, 2021 WL 1743018, at *2 (Pa.Super. 5/3/21) (unpublished memorandum). As noted supra, Appellant's "pro se status does not entitle him to any particular advantage because of…his lack of legal training, and…pro se litigants are bound by our procedural rules." Deek Inv., L.P. v. Murray, 157 A.3d 491, 494 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have observed, "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." Elliott-Greenleaf, P.C., 255 A.2d at 542 (citation omitted). We simply decline to become Appellant's counsel. See id.
In light of the aforementioned, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
[*]Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.