Xi, H. v. Westley, T. ( 2023 )

J-S11031-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
HAIYING XI : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
TAAHIRAT WESTLEY AND KENNETH :
TYLER :
:
Appellees : No. 2787 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 13, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 220402026
BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2023
Appellant, Haiying Xi, appeals pro se from the judgment entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of Appellees, Taahirat
Westley and Kenneth Tyler (tenants), and against Appellant (landlord) on
Appellant’s landlord-tenant action seeking repossession and monetary
damages. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
April 19, 2022, the Philadelphia Municipal Court found against Appellant and
in favor of Appellees on Appellant’s landlord-tenant action seeking
repossession of a rental property and monetary damages for property damage
and breach of the lease agreement. On April 26, 2022, Appellant appealed to
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, seeking a trial de novo, and filed a
complaint raising the same claims he raised at the Municipal Court level. On
J-S11031-23
October 3, 2022, the trial court held a bench trial and found that Appellant
was not entitled to relief because he failed to attach a valid rental license,
certificate of rental suitability, and lead certificate to his complaint. On
October 12, 2022, the trial court entered an order finding in favor of Appellees
and against Appellant on all claims. Appellant filed a premature notice of
appeal on November 2, 2022, before judgment was entered on the verdict.1
Judgment was subsequently entered on March 13, 2023.2 On November 3,
2022, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise
statement of matters complained of on appeal, and Appellant subsequently
complied.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
As a rental case appealed from the Municipal Court and after
the Municipal Court had examined a rental license and lead
certificate before ruling this case, whether the Court of
Common Pleas abused its legal discretion or committed an
____________________________________________
1 In its opinion, the trial court suggests that Appellant waived all his claims on
appeal because he did not file a post-trial motion or otherwise raise his claims
before the trial court. Nevertheless, our review of the record shows that
Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on October 4, 2022, after the court
announced on the record on October 3, 2022 that it intended to find in favor
of Appellees. As the motion for reconsideration raises similar claims as those
Appellant now raises on appeal, we decline to find waiver on this ground. See
Gemini Equipment Co. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 595 A.2d 1211, 1214
(Pa.Super. 1991) (holding that issues raised in timely motion for
reconsideration are preserved for appeal where motion was essentially motion
for post-trial relief).
2 We will relate forward Appellant’s premature notice of appeal to the date
judgment was entered on the verdict. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating notice
of appeal filed after announcement of determination but before entry of
appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on day thereof).
-2-
J-S11031-23
error by claiming that [Appellant] did not have the rental
license and lead certificate?
Whether it would be a better solution for the Court of
Common Pleas to continue the case, postpone the
judgment, and order [Appellant] to provide a copy of a
rental license and lead certificate within a required time
frame instead of making an easy judgment without any
factual ground since [Appellant] did not receive a notice
from the court?
Whether the Municipal Court committed a clear error and
abused legal discretion by accepting the tenants’ allegation
which they had informed [Appellant] of the sewage blockage
for one year but [Appellant] refused to repair it without
requesting [Appellees] to present evidence while they
blocked Police officers from reviewing the sewage damage
to fulfill a police report required by the insurance company?
Whether the court abused its legal discretion by refusing to
determine if police officer could complete a police report
inside the house as the insurance company required even a
rental license and lead certificate were not filed.
Whether the court abused its legal discretion in its failure to
order [Appellees] to be responsible for the cost of repairs
for the damages caused by them and to order [Appellees]
to pay $100 a day after the lease expired but [Appellees]
refused to leave in violation of lease clause V4 and X4.
Whether the court violates [Appellant’s] property right
protected by Article I Section 1 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution or whether it is fair by prohibiting [Appellant]
from calculating the loss of rent based on the current fair
marketing rate after the old lease expired two years ago and
[Appellees] refuse to renew the lease and leave.
Whether the court needs [Appellant’s] current rental license
and lead certificate to expel [Appellees] as trespassers after
they occupy [Appellant’s] property without permission.
(Appellant’s Brief at 2-3).
Preliminarily, we recognize that appellate briefs and reproduced records
-3-
J-S11031-23
must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “[I]f the defects are in the brief or
reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal…may be
quashed or dismissed.” Id.Regarding the argument section of an appellate brief, Rule 2119(a)
states:
Rule 2119. Argument
(a) General rule.—The argument shall be divided into
as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall
have at the head of each part—in distinctive type or in type
distinctively displayed—the particular point treated therein,
followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Importantly, where an appellant fails to properly raise or
develop her issues on appeal, or where her brief is wholly inadequate to
present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits of the
claims raised on appeal. Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa.Super. 2000)
(holding appellant waived claim where she failed to set forth adequate
argument concerning her claim on appeal; appellant’s argument lacked
meaningful substance and consisted of mere conclusory statements; appellant
failed to cogently explain or even tenuously assert why trial court abused its
discretion or made error of law). See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21(Pa.Super 2006) (explaining appellant’s arguments must adhere to rules of
appellate procedure, and arguments which are not appropriately developed
are waived on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those
-4-
J-S11031-23
where party has failed to cite any authority in support of contention); Estate
of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating rules of
appellate procedure make clear appellant must support each question raised
by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority; absent reasoned discussion
of law in appellate brief, this Court’s ability to provide appellate review is
hampered, necessitating waiver of issue on appeal).
Additionally, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe
materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent
[herself] in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that [her]
lack of expertise and legal training will be [her] undoing.” Wilkins v.
Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa.
704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007).
Further, “it is the responsibility of the [a]ppellant to supply this Court
with a complete record for purposes of review.” Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d
622, 623 (Pa.Super. 1993), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 680, 652 A.2d 1325(1994) (emphasis in original). “[A] failure by an [a]ppellant to insure that the
original record certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a
proper review constitutes a waiver of the issue(s) sought to be examined.”
Id. at 623-24. See also Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa.Super. 2004),
appeal denied, 582 Pa. 676, 868 A.2d 1201 (2005) (reiterating appellant’s
responsibility to produce complete record for appeal).
-5-
J-S11031-23
Instantly, Appellant’s brief fails to present any cogent argument to
support any of his issues on appeal. Regarding Appellant’s claims that he was
entitled to collect rent, fees and additional damages from Appellees,
Appellant’s brief entirely fails to explain how the trial court erred in holding
that Appellant was not entitled to relief where he failed to attach a rental
license, certificate of rental suitability and lead certificate to his complaint.3
____________________________________________
3 Section 9-3901(4)(e) of the Philadelphia Code provides:
Non-compliance. Any owner who fails to obtain a rental
license as required by § 9-3902, or to comply with § 9-3903
regarding a Certificate of Rental Suitability, or whose rental
license has been suspended, shall be denied the right to
recover possession of the premises or to collect rent during
or for the period of noncompliance or during or for the period
of license suspension. In any action for eviction or collection
of rent, the owner shall attach a copy of the license.
Phila. Code § 9-3901(4)(e). Additionally, regarding lead certification, the
Philadelphia Code states:
§ 6-803. Lead Disclosure Obligation.
* * *
(3) Rental Protections.
(a) No lessor shall enter into a lease agreement with a
lessee, other than a renewal lease, to rent any Targeted
Housing, or a unit in such Targeted Housing, unless (1)
he or she provides the lessee with a valid certification
prepared by a certified lead inspector stating that the
property is either lead free or lead safe; and (2) the
lessee acknowledges receipt of the certification by
signing a copy.
* * *
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6-
J-S11031-23
Appellant does not refute that he failed to attach the required documents but
merely makes conclusory statements that the trial court had no legal basis to
conclude that Appellant did not have a rental license, certificate of rental
suitability and lead certificate. Appellant asserts that the court “should know
that when the Municipal Court accepted and ruled the case, it had already
examined all required documents.” (Appellant’s Brief at 8). Nevertheless,
Appellant fails to cite to any relevant authority to support his contention that
he was not required to attach the documents to his complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas because he purportedly attached the documents to his
complaint at the Municipal level.4 See Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko,
supra; Butler, supra. Appellant’s failure to include the relevant documents
____________________________________________
§ 6-809. Remedies.
* * *
(4) Where a lessor does not comply with any provision of
Section 6-803(3)(a), the lessor shall be denied the right to
collect rent during or for the period of noncompliance.
Phila. Code §§ 6-803(3)(a), 6-809(4).
4 We reject this argument in any event because Appellant proceeded to a trial
de novo before the Court of Common Pleas. See Phila.Civ.R. 1001.2(a)
(stating: “Final orders issued by the Municipal Court in connection with
Landlord-Tenant orders pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 1123(a)(3), are appealable
to the Court of Common Pleas. The proceeding on appeal shall be conducted
de novo—meaning that the case starts over and may proceed to a new trial—
in accordance with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedures as if the action was
initially commenced in the Court of Common Pleas”).
-7-
J-S11031-23
in the certified record before us also constitutes grounds for waiver. See
Kessler, supra; Smith, supra.In addition, Appellant baldly asserts that “the proper way to balance the
substantive justice and procedural justice is to continue the case and to order
[Appellant] to submit the required documents within the required time.”
(Appellant’s Brief at 9). Again, Appellant fails to make any argument or cite
to any relevant authority to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion
in deciding not to continue the case. See Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko,
supra; Butler, supra. Moreover, our review of the record shows that
Appellant failed to request a continuance at the trial court level. See Pa.R.A.P.
302(a) (stating: “Issues not raised in the [trial] court are waived and cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal”).
Appellant also failed to advance any argument that he was entitled to
damages based on cost of repairs and/or loss of rent in the absence of proof
of a valid rental license, certificate of rental suitability and lead certificate.
Although Appellant claims these documents were unnecessary for the court to
order Appellees to allow the police to enter the residence to inspect any
damage, Appellant supplies no authority to show he was entitled to a court
order to allow police to inspect the residence, particularly where he did not
proffer a valid rental license and lead certificate. Having failed to develop or
-8-
J-S11031-23
support any of his arguments on appeal, Appellant has waived all his issues.5
See Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko, supra; Butler, supra. Accordingly,
we affirm.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/22/2023
____________________________________________
5 Throughout his brief, Appellant also alleges various instances of error by the
Municipal Court. This appeal lies from the judgment entered in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas following a trial de novo. Accordingly,
any alleged errors committed by the Municipal Court are not properly before
us. See Phila.Civ.R. 1001.2(a).
-9-