JBRC v. Kelly Family Trust ( 2023 )

J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JBRC OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC AND : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
JUST BELIEVE RECOVERY CENTER OF : PENNSYLVANIA
CARBONDALE, LLC :
:
Appellants :
:
:
v. :
: No. 98 MDA 2022
:
PATRICK J. KELLY FAMILY TRUST, :
SAPIENT PROVIDENCE LLC, AND :
BRETON EQUITY COMPANY CORP. :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 7, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at
No(s): 2018-CV-02236
JBRC OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC AND : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
JUST BELIEVE RECOVERY CENTER OF : PENNSYLVANIA
CARBONDALE, LLC :
:
:
v. :
:
:
PATRICK J. KELLY FAMILY TRUST, : No. 223 MDA 2022
SAPIENT PROVIDENCE LLC, AND :
BRETON EQUITY COMPANY CORP. :
:
:
APPEAL OF: PATRICK J. KELLY FAMILY :
TRUST :
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
Appeal from the Order Entered January 7, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at
No(s): 2018-CV-02236
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 28, 2023
JBRC of Pennsylvania, LLC (“JBRC, LLC”) and Just Believe Recovery
Center of Carbondale, LLC (“Just Believe Recovery Center”) (collectively, the
“JB Entities”) and Patrick J. Kelly Family Trust (the “Trust”) each filed appeals
from the January 7, 2022 order that struck a writ of execution entered in favor
of Patrick J. Kelly Family Trust (the “Trust”), found that the JB Entities were
entitled to a credit against money they owed to the Trust, and lifted a stay of
the enforcement of an ejectment judgment. In its appeal, the JB Entities
challenge numerous prior orders.1 In the Trust’s appeal, it challenges the
court’s decision to strike the writ of execution and to award the JB Entities a
credit against the Trust’s monetary damages. It also asserts that the appeal
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 These orders include: (1) the October 25, 2018 order sustaining the Trust’s
preliminary objections to three of five counts of the JB Entities’ complaint; (2)
the December 11, 2019 order entering judgment on the pleadings against the
JB Entities as to the remaining counts in the complaint and in favor of the
Trust on its four counterclaims, and entering judgment in ejectment against
JBRC; (3) the July 31, 2020 order conditionally granting the JB Entities’
request for stay relief on the judgment in ejectment; and (4) the June 14,
2021 order determining the monetary damages owed to the Trust on its
counterclaims and modifying the conditions of stay relief.
-2-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
that the JB Entities filed is untimely.2 After careful review, we quash the JB
Entities’ appeal as untimely and affirm in part and reverse in part the January
7, 2022 order.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. In September
2014, JBRC, LLC, purchased real estate formerly used as a hospital (the
“Property”). JBRC, LLC, leased the Property to Just Believe Recovery Center
which then operated a mental health and substance abuse treatment facility
at the Property.3
On April 10, 2017, the JB Entities executed a second mortgage loan
agreement (“Loan Agreement”) with the Trust for $800,000. The Loan
Agreement established a repayment schedule that provided, inter alia, that
the JB Entities would make their final payment on the mortgage approximately
one year later, on April 9, 2018. A Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure (“Deed”)
secured the mortgage and the Loan Agreement provided that the Trust could
file the Deed in the event of default.
Relevant to the instant appeal, the Loan Agreement defined the failure
to make a timely payment under the terms of the Note or the Loan
____________________________________________
2 We have consolidated these appeals sua sponte.
3 On November 20, 2014, Just Believe executed a mortgage on the Property
in favor of named-defendant Sapient Provident, LLC (“Sapient”). Sapient
recorded the mortgage on November 25, 2014. On February 26, 2018,
Sapient assigned the mortgage to named-defendant Breton Equity Company
Corp. (“Breton”) for $550,000.
-3-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
Agreements as an “Event of Default.”4 The Loan Agreement provided
remedies for an Event of Default which changed depending on when the
default occurred. The Loan Agreement specified that the failure to make all
payments due under the Note “on or before the Final Payment Date [of April
9, 2018] shall constitute an Event of Default hereunder and shall entitle [the
Trust] to all rights and remedies set forth herein, in the Note or in any [] of
the other Loan Documents.”5
The JB Entities failed to make payments as required by the Loan
Agreement. On February 13, 2018, the parties entered into a Forbearance
and Release Agreement (“Forbearance Agreement”). In the Forbearance
Agreement, the JB Entities acknowledged that it was in default of the Loan
Agreement. The parties agreed that, upon the JB Entities’ payment of
$50,000, the Trust would refrain from exercising any of its remedies that the
Loan Agreement provided the Trust as a result of the JB Entities’ default of
the Loan Agreement. The JB Entities also agreed to pay the Trust the $50,000
immediately. In exchange, the Trust agreed that the JB Entities could remain
in possession of the Property and the Trust would wait until March 15, 2018
to exercise any of its remedies.6 Of most significance, the JB Entities agreed
to release the Trust from all obligations and liability under the Loan
____________________________________________
4 Loan Agreement, 4/10/17, at Art. VII ¶ 7.1.
5 Id. at Art. VII ¶ 7.1(a).
6 Forbearance Agreement, 2/13/18, at 1.
-4-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
Agreement, including the obligation to wait until April 9, 2018, to file the
Deed.7
The JB Entities did not cure their payment default during the forbearance
period. Accordingly, on March 16, 2018, the Trust exercised its right to file
the Deed.
Procedural History Relevant to the Judgment against the JB Entities
On April 13, 2018, the JB Entities filed a five-count complaint asserting
that the Trust violated the terms of the Loan Agreement by prematurely
recording the Deed.8, 9 In particular, the JB Entities claimed that because it
had not committed an “Event of Default” as defined in the Loan Agreement,
the Trust “illegally” filed the Deed on March 16, 2018, “before the [f]inal
[p]ayment [d]ate [of April 9, 2018] and in violation of the terms of the [] Loan
[Agreement], despite [the JB Entities] having complied with the terms of the
____________________________________________
7 See id. at 1-2 (releasing the Trust from “any and all obligations . . . held by
[the JB Entities] . . . related to . . . the substance of the terms and obligations
therein provided [in the Loan Documents].”).
8 In particular, the JB Entities asserted claims for: (1) breach of contract of
the Loan Agreement; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) fraud in the inducement; (4)
quiet title; and (5) injunctive relief.
9 The JB Entities asserted their quiet title claim also against Sapient and
Breton, and Sapient subsequently filed crossclaims against Breton and the
Trust. Those claims have been resolved or withdrawn and Sapient and Breton
are not parties to this appeal.
-5-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
Forbearance Agreement.”10 The JB Entities concluded that through these
actions, the Trust unlawfully acquired ownership of the Property.
The Trust filed preliminary objections to the complaint. On October 25,
2018, the trial court sustained two of the objections and dismissed those
counts of the complaint. In particular, the trial court concluded that the
Forbearance Agreement authorized the recordation of the Deed at any time
after March 15, 2018. The court also concluded that “there was an
acknowledged default by the Terms of the Forbearance [] Agreement and by
the execution of the document and performance of its payment agreement by
[JB Entities].”11
The Trust then filed an answer and new matter to the remaining counts
of the complaint. The Trust also asserted counterclaims for: (1) a declaratory
judgment that the JB Entities were precluded from obtaining any relief; (2)
ejectment of the Recovery Center from the Property because the Trust did not
have notice of the Recovery Center’s lease with JBRC, LLC; (3) monetary
damages for breach of the Forbearance Agreement; and (4) counsel fees and
costs based on the Loan Agreement and/or 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(6), (7), and/or
(9).
The JB Entities filed preliminary objections to the Trust’s counterclaims,
which the trial court overruled on March 1, 2019.
____________________________________________
10 Complaint, 4/13/18, at ¶¶ 20-21.
11 Trial Ct. Order, 10/25/18, at 3 (unpaginated).
-6-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
On May 5, 2019, the parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings. Following a hearing, on December 11, 2019, the trial court entered
judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Trust on its counterclaim and against
the JB Entities on the remaining counts of their complaint. The court, thus,
entered a judgment of ejectment against the JB Entities and in favor of the
Trust. The court also entered a judgment of monetary damages against the
JB Entities and in favor of the Trust, but, at that time, it did not fix the amount
of monetary damages to which the Trust was entitled.
On May 6, 2020, the Trust filed a motion for assessment of monetary
damages pertaining to the judgment in its favor on its breach of contract
claim, including for the fair rental value of the Property and a request for
attorney’s fees.
Following a hearing on the motion, on July 31, 2020, the trial court
granted the Trust’s request for monetary damages. In particular, it ordered
the JB Entities to pay the Trust an unspecified amount of counsel fees and
directed the Trust to submit a proposed order for a money judgment
consistent with its award of counsel fees.12
On August 31, 2020, the Trust submitted to the trial court a proposed
order for the money judgment in its favor.13
____________________________________________
12The court did not award the Trust any monetary damages on its breach of
contract claim.
13 The Trust submitted the proposed order as part of the joint motion for
clarification of the July 31, 2020 order discussed, infra.
-7-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
On June 14, 2021, the trial court entered an order awarding the Trust
$405,739 in monetary damages for counsel fees. Although this order resolved
all of the claims of both parties by entering final judgments—one judgment
for monetary damages and one judgment for ejectment—neither party
appealed from this order.
Procedural History Relevant to Enforcement of the Trust’s Money
Judgment
On August 19, 2021, the Trust attempted to enforce its money judgment
against the JB Entities by issuing and directing the sheriff’s service of a writ
of execution to PNC Bank where the JB Entities maintained a corporate
account.
The next day, the JB Entities filed an emergency motion to stay and set
aside the execution of the writ of execution on the money judgment.14 They
also filed a claim for exemption from levy and attachment of their PNC Bank
account, alleging that the funds in the account were exempt from levy
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8127(a).
On September 15, 2021, the Trust filed a response to the JB Entities’
motion to set aside the writ asserting, inter alia, that Section 8127(a) was
inapplicable to the instant facts.
____________________________________________
14The JB Entities claimed that the stay was warranted because the Trust failed
to provide them with proper notice of the writ as required by the Rules of Civil
Procedure and because the JB Entities’ personal property was exempt from
attachment. Motion, 8/20/21, at ¶ 13.
-8-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
On January 7, 2022, the trial court entered an order striking the Trust’s
writ of execution that it had filed against the JB Entities’ bank account at PNC.
The court determined that the JB Entities’ PNC bank account was exempt from
execution pursuant to Section 8127(a) because the funds held therein were
intended for the purpose of paying the wages of the JB Entities’ employees.15
Procedural History Relevant to Stay of Judgment of Ejectment
Meanwhile, following the court’s December 11, 2019 determination that
the Trust was entitled to a judgment in ejectment, on January 3, 2020, the JB
Entities filed a motion to stay the enforcement of the judgment in ejectment.
The Trust opposed entry of a stay, but also argued that, if the court imposed
a stay, it should order as a condition of remaining in possession of the Property
that the JB Entities pay rent to the Trust.
On July 31, 2020, the trial court issued an order granting the JB Entities
a stay from the enforcement of the judgment of ejectment on the condition
that they pay rental payments of $20,000 per month to the Trust in addition
to all taxes, maintenance, insurance, and utilities. The trial court also ordered
that the Trust receive rental payments from the JB Entities’ sub-tenants16 and
be responsible for all structural maintenance.
____________________________________________
15 As discussed, infra, the trust has filed an appeal from this order claiming,
inter alia, that the trial court misapplied Section 8127(a).
16 Wayne Memorial Hospital and Geisinger Medical Center were sub-tenants
at the time and paid monthly rental rents of $9,920 and $1,807.58,
respectively.
-9-
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
On August 31, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion for clarification of
the court’s July 31, 2020 order staying enforcement of the Trust’s ejectment
judgment. The parties sought clarification regarding, inter alia, which party
should shoulder which of the maintenance expenses and utility fees on the
Property and whether the award of rental payments from the JB Entities and
their sub-tenants to the Trust was retroactive or prospective.
On June 14, 2021, the trial court issued an order clarifying the terms of
the stay of the enforcement of the ejectment judgment. In particular, the
court clarified the financial responsibilities of the parties with respect to the
maintenance, taxes, and expenses arising from ownership and use of the
Property. The court also explained that the JB Entities and their sub-tenants
owed monthly rent payments retroactive to December 10, 2019—the date on
which the court entered judgment in ejectment in favor of the Trust. The
court further ordered that the stay of the enforcement of the ejectment
judgment remain in effect until further notice.
On August 19, 2021, the JB Entities filed a motion for assessment of
damages based on the alleged failure of the Trust to, inter alia, maintain the
Property in accordance with the terms of the court order staying the
enforcement of the ejectment judgment.
On September 15, 2021, the Trust filed an answer to the JB Entities’
motions and asserted that it was the JB Entities who had not complied with
the terms of the court’s orders by failing to make monthly rent payments on
and after April 2021.
- 10 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
On January 7, 2022, the trial court entered an order finding that the
Trust had failed to maintain the Property in the condition that the trial court
had ordered when it stayed the execution of the ejectment judgment.
Therefore, the court concluded that the JB Entities were entitled to an offset
of $299,746.71 against the money it owed to the Trust.
It is from this order addressing the conditions of the stay of the
enforcement of the ejectment judgment that both parties filed their notices of
appeal. They and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
A.
In its appeal, JB Entities raise the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court err when it sustained the [Trust’s]
preliminary objections to Count I (breach of contract) of [the
JB Entities’] Complaint upon finding that the [Deed] was not
prematurely filed, when the Deed was recorded prior to the
Final Payment Date and contrary to the Non-payment
provisions in the applicable loan documents?
2. Did the trial court err when it sustained the [Trust’s]
preliminary objections to Count II (unjust enrichment) of [the
JB Entities’] Complaint when the Deed was recorded before the
Final Payment Date and not other “Event of Default” occurred
to justify the [] Trust recording the Deed?
3. Did the trial court err when it sustained the [Trust’s]
preliminary objections to Count III (fraud in the inducement)
of [the JB Entities’] Complaint when the [] Trust made
misrepresentations regarding the Forbearance [] Agreement?
4. Did the trial court err by granting the [] Trust’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings when the [] Trust recorded the
Deed prior to the Final Payment Date set by the applicable loan
documents?
5. Did the trial court err by denying [the JB Entities’] Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings when the [] Trust recorded the
- 11 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
Deed prior to the Final Payment Date as set by the applicable
loan documents?
6. Did the trial court err by awarding attorney’s fees, monetary
damages[,] and rent to the [] Trust based upon the above-
referenced prior findings?
JB Entities’ Brief at 14-15.
The Trust raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Did the lower court erroneously strike a writ of execution that
was served on a bank account?
2. In determining a “credit against monies owed by [the JB
Entities] to the [] Trust,” did the lower court make an untimely
and incorrect determination of the amount remaining to be paid
in order to satisfy an award of counsel fees or did it make an
irrelevant determination as to the extent to which [the JB
Entities] had complied with the conditions of a stay order
pertaining to enforcement of a judgment in ejectment, the term
or effect of which had expired?
3. Assuming that the determinations made in the June 14, 202[1
o]rder are subject to appellate review, did the lower court fail
to address the [] Trust’s motion for assessment of damages on
its counterclaims and properly calculate the extent of damages
sustained by the [] Trust as a result of [ the JB Entities’] failure
to abide by the terms of the [Forbearance] Agreement?
Trust’s Appellant Brief at 4-5.17
B.
Before we reach the issues presented by the parties, we must first
determine whether we have jurisdiction over the JB Entities’ appeal, which
____________________________________________
17 On March 10, 2022, the Trust filed an application to dismiss the JB Entities’
appeal as untimely. On May 5, 2022, this Court denied the Trust’s application
to dismiss without prejudice to the Trust to re-raise the issue of timeliness in
its brief to this Court. In the Trust’s briefs—one filed as appellant and one as
appellee—the Trust has reasserted its argument that we should quash this
appeal as untimely. See Trust’s Appellee Brief at 13-19; Trust’s Appellant
Brief at 4, 15-19.
- 12 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
challenges the trial court’s imposition of a monetary judgment and a judgment
of ejectment against the JB Entities and in favor of the Trust.
A final order is, inter alia, one that “disposes of all claims and of all
parties[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1). For an appeal to be timely, the appealing
party must file a notice of appeal within thirty days after the entry of the order
from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). The failure to do so results
in waiver of review. See Morningstar v. Hoban, 819 A.2d 1191, 1194 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (reiterating the well-established principle that “the failure to file
a timely appeal will divest this Court of jurisdiction.”).
Relevant to this consideration, we reiterate that, following the court’s
orders of October 25, 2019, December 11, 2019, and July 31, 2020, the trial
court entered an order on June 14, 2021 that fixed the amount of attorney’s
fees owed to the Trust. At this point, the Trust had obtained both a judgment
of ejectment in its favor and against the JB Entities and an ascertained
monetary judgment in its favor and against the JB Entities. Thus, as a result
of the June 14, 2021 order, the Trust had a final order that granted the Trust
a judgment in ejectment and a monetary judgment in its favor and against JB
Entities. The JB Entities failed to appeal the entry of these judgments within
thirty days of the entry of the final order and, thus, we now lack jurisdiction
to review any challenges to them.
The JB Entities argue, however, that the final order in this matter was
not the order imposing the monetary judgment and the judgment in
ejectment, but rather the order that concerned the Trust’s attempts to execute
- 13 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
its judgments. The JB Entities have provided us with no legal authority, and
we have found none, that tolls the appeal period until a party who holds a
judgment against another party attempts to execute on the judgment. Rather
the case law is clear that a judgment is a final order from which a party must
appeal. The execution of that judgment is a separate and distinct
proceeding.18
Because the JB Entities failed to appeal from the June 14, 2021 final
order within thirty days as required by Pa.R.A.P. 903, the JB Entities lost the
____________________________________________
18 We observe that, because a party who holds a judgment may execute on it
at any time, or not at all, it defies reason to toll the period for challenging the
underlying judgment until the party who holds it decides, in its discretion, to
execute on it.
- 14 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
right to challenge the underlying judgments.19, 20 We, therefore, quash the JB
Entities’ appeal.21
C.
With respect to the Trust’s appeal, the Trust first asserts that the trial
court erred when it concluded that the JB Entities’ PNC Bank account was
exempt from execution for purposes of enforcing their money judgment and
as a result, struck the writ of execution that the Trust had served on PNC.
Trust’s Brief at 19-20. The Trust argues that the statute that the trial court
relied upon only exempts from attachment those bank accounts that consist
of “wages, salaries and commissions of individuals” when the judgment is
____________________________________________
19We note that if the JB Entities had raised any issues challenging the January
7, 2022 order awarding it a credit, striking the Trust’s writ of execution of the
money judgment, and lifting the stay of the judgment of ejectment, those
challenges would have been timely. The JB Entities, however, only challenged
the underlying judgments.
20 The trial court noted that the January 7, 2022 order striking the Trust’s writ
of execution, awarding the JB Entities a credit, and lifting the stay of the
judgment of ejectment was a “final order.” We agree that the order is final
as to its contents, i.e., the court’s decision to strike the Trust’s writ of
execution against the JB Entities’ bank account, to award the JB Entities a
credit, and to lift the stay preventing the Trust from enforcing the judgment
of ejectment. The January 7, 2022 order was not, however, final as to the
underlying judgments; rather, as discussed, supra, the court had entered the
final order disposing of the claims between the parties regarding the
judgments themselves nearly seven months earlier on June 14, 2021.
21 Even if the JB Entities had timely appealed the underlying judgments, we
would conclude that they are not entitled to relief as, pursuant to the terms
of the Forbearance Agreement, they admitted they were in default of the Loan
Agreement and released the Trust from liability and any of the obligations set
forth in the Loan Agreement, such as the date upon which the Trust was
authorized to file the Deed.
- 15 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
against an employee who has a right to those “wages, salaries and
commissions of individuals.” Id. (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 8127(a)). The Trust
further argues that the statute does not apply to the instant facts because the
Trust’s judgment is not against an individual employee, but the JB Entities,
corporate entities. Id. at 19. We agree.
This issue implicates the interpretation of Section 8127 of the Judicial
Code titled “Personal earnings exempt from process.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 8127.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law, therefore, our standard of review
is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514,
517 (Pa. 2013).
Section 8127(a) provides, in relevant part, that the “wages, salaries and
commissions of individuals shall while in the hands of the employer be
exempt from any attachment, execution or other process[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. §
8127(a) (emphasis added). The defense to the execution on a money
judgment does not apply where, inter alia, the judgment arises in a divorce
or support action. Id. at 8127(a)(1)-(3).
In discussing the application of Section 8127(a), this Court has observed
that “[t]he defense of exemption of wages is designed to protect the wage
earner.” Jefferson Bank v. J. Roy Morris and Scanforms, Inc., 639 A.2d
474, 477 (Pa. Super. 1994). See also E. Lithographing Corp. v. Neville,
198 A.2d 391, 393 (Pa. Super. 1964) (“The obvious purpose of the act is to
protect earnings[.]”) (citation omitted)). Thus, in deciding whether funds are
exempt from attachment or garnishment pursuant to Section 8127(a), the
- 16 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
court must consider, inter alia, whether “the garnishee is an employer of the
judgment debtor.” Id.22 In other words, the statute applies when a creditor
seeks to execute on a judgment against a debtor by garnishing the debtor’s
wages from the debtor’s employer. Here the Trust holds a monetary judgment
against a corporate entity, the JB Entities, and not against an individual. The
language of the statute is clear that the exemption from garnishment applies
only to judgments against individuals. This conclusion is further supported by
the exceptions to the statutory defense—they apply in situations that could
only pertain to individuals, i.e., judgments obtained against a spouse or parent
in domestic relations cases.23
Accordingly, the trial court erred in determining that the JB Entities’ PNC
Bank account was exempt from execution and erred in striking the writ of
execution that the Trust served on the JB Entities’ PNC bank account. We,
therefore, reverse the portion of the order striking the writ of execution.
In its next issue, the Trust claims that the trial court erred in awarding
the JB Entities a “credit” against the monetary judgment entered in favor of
the Trust. Trust’s Brief at 20-23.
“The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each
question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of
____________________________________________
22A “garnishee” is one who has money or property in its possession belonging
to a judge debtor.
23Additionally, the JB Entities’ PNC Bank account is not “in the hands of” an
employer of a person against whom there is a judgment as required to invoke
the statutory defense.
- 17 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.
Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2119
(listing argument requirements for appellate briefs). This Court “will not act
as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.
Moreover, when 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.” In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation
omitted).
In its Brief, the Trust fails to provide an adequate legal framework within
which this Court can conduct meaningful appellate review. In the Argument
section of its Brief, the Trust has not provided citation to any legal authority
to support its argument. Because the Trust has not supported its claims with
discussion and analysis of pertinent authority, this Court is unable to evaluate
whether the trial court erred in awarding the JB Entities a credit against the
Trust’s monetary damages. Accordingly, we conclude that this issue is waived
and we, thus, affirm that portion of the January 7, 2022 order.
In the Trust’s final issue, it asserts that when the trial court entered the
monetary judgment in its favor, the court failed to “properly calculate the
extent of damages sustained” by the Trust as a result of the JB Entities’ breach
of the Forbearance Agreement. Trust’s Brief at 24-25. Because this issue,
like the issues raised by the JB Entities in their appeal, arises from the court’s
order entering a monetary judgment in favor of the Trust and against the JB
Entities, the Trust was required to challenge the amount of the monetary
- 18 -
J-A27009-22 and J-A27010-22
judgment within thirty days of entry of that order. The Trust did not do so.
Accordingly, this claim is waived.
JB Entities’ appeal, docketed at 98 MDA 2022, quashed. Order affirmed
in part and reversed in part. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/2023
- 19 -