Parktown Partnership, LP v. Royersford Recovery ( 2016 )

J-A17020-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
PARKTOWN PARTNERSHIP, L.P., BY ITS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
GENERAL PARTNER: P.T. DINNOCENTI PENNSYLVANIA
LLC C/O PALLADINO DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, INC.
v.
ROYERSFORD RECOVERY
APPEAL OF: JOHN LEONARD
No. 3228 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered October 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-25761
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2016
John Leonard appeals, pro se, from the trial court’s order denying his
petition to strike a judgment entered in favor of Appellee, Parktown
Partnership, L.P. (Parktown), in this confession of judgment action. We
dismiss the appeal.
Parktown is a Pennsylvania limited partnership; its general partner is
Appellee, P.T. Dinnocenti LLC, c/o Palladino Development Group, Inc.
(Palladino). Royersford Recovery (Royersford) is a Pennsylvania non-profit
organization. In December 2014, Royersford entered into a ten-year lease
agreement for the rental of 2,300 square feet of commercial space from
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17020-16
Parktown at Parktown Plaza, located at Lewis Road and Oak Street, in
Limerick, Pennsylvania. The lease contains a confession of judgment clause,
for both money damages and possession, which states in part:
Tenant hereby knowingly, intentionally, voluntarily and
irrevocably agrees that, if fixed minimum rent or any charges
hereby reserved as additional rent or liquidated damages, or any
other sum payable hereunder shall remain unpaid when the
same is due beyond any applicable grace period (if any), tenant
hereby empowers any Prothonotary or attorney of any court of
record to appeal for tenant in any and all actions which may be
brought for such rent, liquidated damages or other charges or
expenses agreed to be paid by tenant, hereunder, and to confess
judgment against tenant in any competent court for the recovery
of such rent, liquidated damages or other charges or expenses[.]
Park Town Plaza Lease Agreement, 12/4/14, at Section 18:06(i). Leonard
executed the lease on behalf of Royersford, which included initialing the
Confession of Judgment clause.
On September 22, 2015, Parktown filed a confession of judgment
action1 against Royersford claiming that it breached the lease by defaulting
on its monthly lease payments, including payment of its security deposit.
On September 22, 2015, the court entered judgment in the amount of
$15,068.28,2 plus possession of the leased premises, in favor of Parktown.
____________________________________________
1
The complaint also sought ejectment of Royersford from the leased
premises. See Plaintiff’s Complaint (Count II), 9/22/15, at 5. The lease
also contains a confession of judgment clause for ejectment. See Park Town
Plaza Lease, 12/4/14, at Section 18:06(ii).
2
Royersford’s monthly rent totaled $1,404.92, plus common area
maintenance and sewer charges. At the time the complaint was filed,
Royersford was allegedly $10,068.28 in default under the lease.
-2-
J-A17020-16
On October 2, 2015, Leonard filed a petition to strike the judgment, which
was denied after a hearing. This timely pro se appeal follows.
Due to the substantial deficiencies in Leonard’s appellate brief, which
greatly impair our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we are
constrained to dismiss this appeal. To begin, we refer Leonard to the
general rule requiring that briefs conform to the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Rule 2101 states:
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the
circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they
may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or
reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the
appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (emphasis added). We also bring Rule 2111 to Leonard’s
attention. That rule provides:
Rule 2111. Brief of the Appellant
General rule. The brief of the appellant, except as
otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the
following matter, separately and distinctly entitled and in
the following order:
(1) Statement of jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the
standard of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Argument for appellant.
(8) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(9) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions
(b) and (c) of this rule.
-3-
J-A17020-16
(10) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of
the matters complained of on appeal filed with the
trial court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment
that no order requiring a Rule 1925(b) statement
was entered.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111. Leonard has completely failed to comply with the
requirements of Rule 2111(a). His brief contains no statement of
jurisdiction, statement of scope and standard of review, statement of the
questions involved, statement of the case, summary of argument, argument,
or conclusion stating his sought-after relief.
Rather, Leonard’s brief consists of “general rambling discourse.” See
Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa. Super. 1982). Under
such circumstances, dismissal of the appeal is appropriate. See Branch
Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appeal
dismissed where numerous defects in pro se brief prevented court from
conducting meaningful appellate review).
Appeal dismissed.
GANTMAN, P.J., Joins the memorandum.
PLATT, J., Concurs in the result.
-4-
J-A17020-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/9/2016
-5-