Opinion
J. A03034/15 No. 1078 MDA 2014
05-08-2015
RAUSCH CREEK LAND, L.P., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO KOCHER COAL COMPANY, Appellant v. PORTER ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered May 27, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Civil Division No(s).: S-1721-2010
BEFORE: MUNDY, STABILE, and FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Rausch Creek Land, L.P., successor in interest to Kocher Coal Company, appeals from the order dismissing its complaint for injunctive relief against Appellee, Porter Associates, Inc. Appellant contends the trial court erred by identifying an ambiguity in a lease, holding an agreement existed and that Mr. Steve Shrawder was an officer who could legally bind Appellant, concluding that the entire parcel of land at issue could be used for ash disposal, and ruling that Mr. Terry Schmidt's testimony was not relevant. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court. See Trial Ct. Op., 5/27/14, at 1-15. After a bench trial, the court dismissed Appellant's complaint for injunctive relief on May 27, 2014. Order, 5/27/14. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
We note the docket does not reflect whether the court complied with Pa.R.C.P. 236(b), which states the prothonotary "shall note in the docket the giving of the notice" required by Pa.R.C.P. 236(a).
We construe this as an order resolving a request for injunctive relief, which is entitled to an interlocutory appeal as of right. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4). We acknowledge that an order dismissing a complaint after a bench trial is an atypical verdict.
Appellant raises the following issues:
Whether the court erred as a matter of law by determining that an ambiguity existed in paragraph 7 of the lease regarding [Appellant's] exclusive reservation of the right to place only coal refuse in the Primrose Pit.
Whether the court erred as a matter of law by determining that an agreement existed as to the Exhibit A map being the metes and bounds description.
Whether the court erred as a matter of law by determining that Steve Shrawder was an officer with authority to legally bind [Appellant], specifically with regard to the effect of Mr. Shrawder's discussions and negotiation of the terms of the lease and placing his initials on the metes and bounds description.
Whether the court erred as a matter of law in determining that the 800 acre parcel was properly permitted for ash disposal.
Whether the court erred as a matter of law in determining that Terry Schmidt's testimony was irrelevant regarding the fact that [Appellee] has no legal obligation to reclaim the Primrose Pit or any other abandoned strip mining pits within the 115 acre permit area or outside the 115 acre permit area.Appellant's Brief at 7.
In support of Appellant's first issue, it argues that the trial court failed to explain how paragraph seven was ambiguous. Appellant refers this Court to the Surface Mining Permit ("SMP"), which purportedly states that the Primrose Pit was to be reclaimed using coal refuse only. Appellant maintains that the SMP, read in conjunction with the lease, precluded Appellee from depositing ash in the Primrose Pit. Id . at 18. We hold Appellant is due no relief.
The standard of review is an error of law:
[I]n order to establish a claim for a permanent injunction, the party must establish his or her clear right to relief. However, unlike a claim for a preliminary injunction, the party need not establish either irreparable harm or immediate relief and a court may issue a final injunction if such relief is necessary to prevent a legal wrong for which there is no adequate redress at law. Additionally, when reviewing the grant or denial of a final or permanent injunction, an appellate court's review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law.Buffalo Twp. v. Jones , 813 A.2d 659, 663-64 (quotation marks, citations, and footnote omitted).
Instantly, Appellant has presented no legal authority whatsoever in support of its argument. Appellant's Brief at 14-19. Appellant, for example, does not explain how this Court may rely upon parol evidence to establish that paragraph seven is not ambiguous. "It is the appellant who has the burden of establishing his entitlement to relief by showing that the ruling of the trial court is erroneous under the evidence or the law. Where the appellant has failed to cite any authority in support of a contention, the claim is waived." Bunt v. Pension Mortg. Assocs ., Inc ., 666 A.2d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted); accord Korn v. Epstein , 727 A.2d 1130, 1135 (Pa. Super. 1999). Because Appellant has cited no legal authority, it has waived this claim on appeal. See J.J. Deluca Co. v. Toll Naval Assocs ., 56 A.3d 402, 412 (Pa. Super. 2012).
For its second issue, Appellant refers this Court to testimony and evidence supporting its contention that its "Exhibit A" is the true Exhibit A. Appellant emphasizes that the record contradicts Appellee's testimony that Appellee's "Exhibit A" is the actual Exhibit A. Appellant, however, "offers no [legal] authority at all to support it. Accordingly, this claim is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b)." J.J. Deluca Co ., 56 A.3d at 412. Regardless, we would have discerned no basis to reverse as the trial court heard conflicting testimony and found Appellee's witness more credible with respect to identifying the actual "Exhibit A." See Trial Ct. Op. at 17-18 (finding most credible Mr. Shrawder's testimony that metes and bounds description was actual Exhibit A); Buffalo Twp ., 813 A.2d at 663-64; see also In re Zeedick's Estate , 218 A.2d 755, 755 (Pa. 1966) (per curiam) ("[O]n appeal, it is not within our province to assess the credibility of the testimony."); Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores , Inc ., 24 A.3d 875, 891 (Pa. Super. 2011) (per curiam) ("Questions of credibility and conflicts in the evidence are for the fact-finder to resolve and the reviewing court should not reweigh the evidence." (alteration and citation omitted)), affirmed, 106 A.3d 656 (Pa. 2014).
Appellant argues, in support of its third issue, that the court erred by holding that Mr. Shrawder was an officer with authority to legally bind Appellant. It references cross-examination testimony within which Mr. Schrawder allegedly admitted he was not an officer. In support of its argument, Appellant draws several factual conclusions from favorable testimony. Appellant, however, similar to its argument for its first and second issues, cited no legal authority whatsoever; accordingly, Appellant has waived this claim on appeal. See J.J. Deluca Co ., 56 A.3d at 412. Moreover, Appellant failed to raise an appropriate objection before the trial court and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 302.
For Appellant's fourth issue, we reproduce the entirety of its argument below:
The SMP clearly provides that the permit area is 115 acres. The trial court had absolutely no basis to find that the SMP included any area greater than the 115 acres addressed in the SMP.Appellant's Brief at 28-29. Appellant's skeletal argument, devoid of authority and analysis results in waiver. See J.J. Deluca Co ., 56 A.3d at 412.
We note that the trial court construed the contract and not the SMP. We add that Appellee acknowledged that it is subject to Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection regulations and other legal requirements governing ash disposal. See Appellee's Brief at 35.
In support of their last issue, Appellant similarly presents a one-paragraph argument lacking any legal analysis or citation to authority. See Appellant's Brief at 29. We accordingly find Appellant waived this issue. See J.J. Deluca Co ., 56 A.3d at 412. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment below.
Regardless, it is well-settled that questions of law are for the court to resolve.
--------
Judgment affirmed.
Judge Mundy joins the memorandum.
Judge Stabile concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/8/2015
Image materials not available for display