J.L. Jeter v. Bureau of Admin. Adjudication & Philadelphia Parking Auth. ( 2021 )

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jessica Lynn Jeter, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 718 C.D. 2020
: Submitted: February 26, 2021
Bureau of Administrative Adjudication :
and Philadelphia Parking Authority :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE CROMPTON FILED: July 2, 2021
Jessica Lynn Jeter (Jeter), pro se, appeals the January 24, 2020 Order
of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying her
Emergency Motion to Overturn the Decision of the Bureau of Administrative
Adjudication (BAA).1 Before this Court, Jeter asserts that the trial court erred in
denying her Emergency Motion to Overturn the Decision of the BAA (Emergency
Motion) upholding 17 parking citations, totaling $1,524.05, issued to her over 15
years ago. The BAA contends that Jeter failed to meet her burden of proof under
1
The BAA, a local agency, is a finance unit under the City of Philadelphia’s Office of the
Director of Finance, which provides administrative hearings for the adjudication of disputed
parking tickets pursuant to the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§751-754.
Section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law.2 Further, the BAA argues that Jeter’s brief
before this Court is inadequate and fails to properly raise and develop issues for
review as required under the Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule
2119(a).3 Upon review, we affirm the Order of the trial court.
I. Background
Jeter received a letter, dated January 17, 2020, from the City of
Philadelphia’s BAA stating that Jeter owed the City of Philadelphia an outstanding
debt in the amount of $1,524.05 for 17 parking tickets. Trial Ct. Record (T.C.R.) at
20. The letter indicated that “[a]s a condition of employment, the City of
Philadelphia, requires that any person offered employment must be current on all
debts, taxes, fees, judgments, claims and obligations due to the City.” Id. At the
2
Section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law reads:
In the event a full and complete record of the proceedings before the local agency
was made, the court shall hear the appeal without a jury on the record certified by
the agency. After hearing the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find
that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or
is not in accordance with law, or that the provisions of Subchapter B of Chapter 5
(relating to practice and procedure of local agencies) have been violated in the
proceedings before the agency, or that any finding of fact made by the agency and
necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. If the
adjudication is not affirmed, the court may enter any order authorized by 42 Pa.C.S.
§706 (relating to disposition of appeals).
2 Pa. C.S. §754(b).
3
Rule 2119(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure reads:
(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).
2
time of receipt of the letter, Jeter was “trying to apply for an employment job [sic]
with the City” as a “heavy equipment operator.” Hr’g Tr., 02/24/2020, at 6; T.C.R.
at 42.
The BAA’s letter indicated that the outstanding parking tickets were
associated with Pennsylvania state vehicle license plate number “DYX7078.”
T.C.R. at 20. On January 21, 2020, Jeter appeared in person at a Philadelphia
Parking Authority location “to resolve all matters or get a hearing.” Id. at 15. In
response to Jeter’s request, the BAA issued a decision, also on January 21, 2020,
indicating that “[o]ne or more open tickets [are] no longer eligible for [a] hearing
since entry of default was more than one year ago. [(] [Phila, Pa., The] Philadelphia
Code §12-2807(4)[(2021))].” Id. at 7.
Immediately following the BAA’s decision, Jeter requested a “print[-]
out” of the tickets. Id. at 15. Upon reading the provided records, Jeter expressed
concern that she had not owned a vehicle in 2001 and 2003 when the tickets were
issued. Id. Further, Jeter explained that she had never owned a vehicle with the
license plate number “DYX7078” and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)
“IG3NF5145HM246260.” Id.
Because the BAA determined that Jeter was ineligible for a BAA
hearing due to the extended default time frame of the parking tickets, Jeter was
directed to file an appeal with the trial court. Id. at 17. On January 21, 2020, the
BAA issued a letter to Jeter to “present to the Office of Judicial Records, in City
Hall room 296, in order to file for [sic] the [trial court].” Id. at 8. On January 23,
2020, Jeter filed an Emergency Motion with the trial court. Id. at 11.
Per Jeter’s handwritten Emergency Motion, following her meeting at
the Philadelphia Parking Authority office on January 21, 2020, she inquired with the
3
Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) about the registered owner of a vehicle with the
license plate number “DYX7078.” Id. at 16. According to Jeter, PSP “could not
find no [sic] information on the tag [number] [‘]DYX7078[’] that pertain [sic] to
me.” Id. Jeter also requested that the PSP “look up” the VIN
“IG3NF5145HM246260.” Id. Jeter described that “[i]t is [sic] suppose [sic] to be a
Ford. I never owned a Ford. Once the police officer looked it up he told me is [sic]
was not a Ford, and nothing is coming back with [my] name.” Id. PSP directed Jeter
to inquire with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) for
further information. Id.
Jeter then described utilizing a PennDOT “online messenger service”
and requesting information regarding license plate number “DYX7078.” Id. Jeter
explained that “[t]hey [sic] gave me a print out stating [‘]No Records in Range[’].
Then the messenger Location [sic] at 6701 Haverford Phila, PA 19151.” Id. Jeter
proceeded to visit the PennDOT location in Harrisburg, where she “found out” from
a “customer service rep” that “the vehicle is an Oldsmobile not a Ford with two
owners [sic] name [sic] on the [‘]Master Purge Report[,’] one of which is not in
question [and] the second one which [sic] an owner [sic] name.” Id. at 18. Per Jeter,
PennDOT found the vehicle to be associated with Antoinette Jones at 5104 Chester
Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19143. Id.
Additionally, in a letter addressed to Jeter and dated January 22, 2020,
PennDOT explained that according to its records, Jeter’s “address was changed from
1480 N. Allison St., Philadelphia, PA 19131, to 5104 Chester Ave., Philadelphia,
PA 19143, then was changed to the current address on file [,2008 W. Wingohocking
St., Philadelphia, PA 19140,] on May 21, 2019.” Id. at 25.
4
On January 24, 2020, a trial court hearing was held on the Emergency
Motion. Upon the trial court’s request to clarify her position, Ms. Jeter stated:
First and foremost, they sent me a letter that I never got before, up until
now, me trying to apply for an employment job [sic] with the City. I
never got any of these tickets. This car is not registered [in] my name.
The [license plate] or the VIN is not registered in my name.
Hr’g Tr., 2/24/2020, at 5. The trial court sought further clarification, asking:
[The Court]: As I understand it in your petition, nothing is coming back
indicating your name was associated with the license plate in question:
PADYX7278 [sic].
Is that your position, madam?
[Ms. Jeter]: Yes.
Id. at 6. However, following Jeter’s statements at the hearing, counsel for the BAA
explained:
Your Honor, the City’s records indicate this vehicle was registered to
Ms. Jeter at an address [600 West Harvey] that we know she lived at.
Again, it was many years ago, and it may have just fallen through the
cracks, as far as collection; however, we do have documentation that
notice upon notice were [sic] being sent to the address for almost 12
years.
Id. Counsel for the BAA then moved to submit the above-referenced documentation
into the record, and the trial court judge granted the request. See T.C.R. at 22; see
also Trial Ct. Op., 03/16/2020, at Ex. 1.
On January 24, 2020, the trial court issued an Order denying Jeter’s
Emergency Motion. In its subsequent opinion, the trial court noted that the BAA
provided evidence that Jeter lived at the address to which the car was registered and
that the City had documentation of notices being sent to that address for 12 years.
5
Trial Ct. Op., 03/16/2020, at 3-4. Further, the trial court opined that while Jeter had
information from PennDOT, it only showed her address and did not in fact relate to
the tickets or the license plate in question.4 Id. at 4.
Jeter now appeals to this Court.5
II. Discussion
On appeal, Jeter argues that the trial court committed an error of law in
denying her Emergency Motion because the BAA did not provide evidence, through
documentation, to support that the license plate number and VIN associated with the
4
Further, in its March 16, 2020 opinion, the trial court raised the issue of whether its denial
of Jeter’s Emergency Motion was appealable to this Court because it was not a “final order.” See
Pa. R.A.P. 341. In the trial court’s view, the emergency motion program produces findings that
are interlocutory, not final, in nature. Therefore, Jeter’s instant appeal should be dismissed.
“[Jeter]’s Emergency Motion was filed through the court’s emergency motion program,
which allows for judicial review of a motion the same day the motion is filed.” Trial Ct. Op.,
03/16/2020, at 3. Per the trial court record, on January 24, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on
the Emergency Motion, allowing both Jeter and the BAA to provide substantive testimony and
evidence. These proceedings evaluated the merits of the case and were not merely procedural in
nature. Additionally, before this Court, neither Jeter nor the BAA question the finality of the trial
court’s January 24, 2020 Order, and the trial court itself evaluated the merits of Jeter’s case in its
March 16, 2020 opinion. Therefore, while we note the issue of finality, as raised by the trial court,
in our view, the case is ripe for our review, and we will evaluate Jeter’s appeal.
5
When reviewing a matter on appeal from a local agency, this Court:
must affirm the agency where, as here, a complete record was developed before the
local agency, unless the court has determined that constitutional rights were
violated, an error of law was committed, the procedure before the agency was
contrary to statute, or [] a necessary finding of fact was unsupported by substantial
evidence.
King v. City of Phila. Bureau of Admin. Adjudication, 102 A.3d 1073, 1076 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)
(quoting Civ. Serv. Comm’n of the City of Phila. v. Farrell, 513 A.2d 1123, 1124-25 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1986)).
6
outstanding tickets were registered to her. The BAA contends that the trial court did
not err in affirming its decision. Further, the BAA asserts that Jeter failed to meet
her burden of proof under Section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law by failing to
prove that her constitutional rights were violated, that an error of law was committed
by the BAA, that the procedure before the BAA was contrary to statute, or that
necessary findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence.6
Before the trial court, Jeter asserted that the outstanding tickets were
“not correct” and “should not be held against her.” Hr’g Tr., 02/24/2020, at 4; Trial
Ct. Op., 03/16/2020, at 3. In support of this claim, Jeter presented a letter from
PennDOT that showed only her current and previous addresses as registered with
PennDOT, but it did not relate to the tickets or the license plate in question. See
Trial Ct. Op., 03/16/2020, at 4; see also T.C.R. at 25. The addresses provided by
PennDOT did not include “600 West Harvey,” the address that the BAA ascribed to
the outstanding tickets, which Jeter argued was conclusive evidence that the BAA
had assigned the outstanding tickets to her in error. Id. However, Jeter could not
provide any further evidence to support her claim that the BAA had committed an
error in attributing the tickets to her.
The BAA, in contrast, provided the trial court with records that
indicated Jeter previously lived at “600 West Harvey,” the address at which the
vehicle associated with the outstanding tickets was registered. See T.C.R. at 20-22.
These records also documented that the BAA had sent notices regarding the
6
Before this Court, the BAA also argues that Jeter failed to adequately develop any
argument in her brief filed with this Court in violation of the Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 2119(a), Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a). As a result, the BAA asserts that Jeter’s appellate claims
should be precluded. While we acknowledge the issue presented by the BAA, we will evaluate
the instant case, considering whether the trial court committed an error of law by denying Jeter’s
Emergency Motion.
7
outstanding tickets to that address for over 12 years. Id. At the trial court hearing,
counsel for the BAA further clarified, stating: “There were 15 notices for each ticket
sent to that address.” Hr’g Tr., 02/24/2020, at 8.
At the hearing, the trial court asked Jeter to directly address the
documents provided by the BAA in consideration of her assertion that the BAA had
committed an error of law. Jeter insisted that because her letter from PennDOT did
not indicate her license had ever been registered at “600 West Harvey,” she could
not be the individual associated with the outstanding tickets. However, Jeter
acknowledged that she lived at “600 West Harvey,” but for “college only.” Hr’g
Tr., 02/24/2020, at 9. The BAA’s counsel responded by explaining: “[T]here’s no
dispute that [] Jeter lived at 600 West Harvey[.] [W]hether she appropriately
changed her license, I can’t speak to that. When you move, you have to tell
[Penn]DOT that you moved. I don’t know what bearing that would have, Your
Honor.” Id. at 12.
Thus, while Jeter relied upon PennDOT’s records to demonstrate all
known addresses with which she has been associated, the trial court found this
inquiry was not dispositive of whether the outstanding tickets are attributable to her.
At the trial court hearing, Jeter admitted to having lived at “600 West Harvey,” the
address to which the vehicle was registered and to which the associated notices were
sent. Although PennDOT did not have records of Jeter residing at “600 West
Harvey,” by Jeter’s own admission, she lived there “during college,” a transient time
when many individuals commonly do not update their address on their driver’s
license and/or vehicle registration. Therefore, because the BAA produced records
indicating that Jeter lived at “600 West Harvey,” the address associated with the
outstanding tickets, the trial court found that there was evidence that showed Jeter
8
previously lived at an address that matched the registered address for the tickets, and
vehicle, in question. Trial Ct. Op., 03/16/2020, at 4.
Appellate courts, including this Court, do not inquire into the merits of
a controversy but rather examine the record and determine whether there were
reasonable grounds for the trial court’s order. SEIU Healthcare Pa. v. Com., 104
A.3d 495, 501 (Pa. 2014). Appellate courts will reverse the trial court’s order only
if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the trial court’s order or that the trial
court relied upon a palpably erroneous rule of law or misapplied it. Summit Towne
Ctr., Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995, 1000 (Pa. 2003). As its
Order, here, was supported by the evidence, the trial court did not err in denying
Jeter’s Emergency Motion.
III. Conclusion
Discerning no error below, we affirm the Order of the trial court
denying Jeter’s Emergency Motion.
______________________________
J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge
9
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jessica Lynn Jeter, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 718 C.D. 2020
:
Bureau of Administrative Adjudication :
and Philadelphia Parking Authority :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of July 2021, we AFFIRM the January 24,
2020 Order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
______________________________
J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge