Sayyed, M. v. Mike a/k/a Betimes, Inc. ( 2018 )

J-A17043-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MANSOOR SAYYED, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
MIKE, A/K/A BETIMES, INC., D/B/A :
NORTHERN PIKE APARTMENTS : No. 1873 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order November 20, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Civil Division at No(s): AR-16-2385/2387
BEFORE: OTT, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Mansoor Sayyed (“Sayyed”), pro se, appeals from the Order denying his
post-trial Motion, following the verdict against him, and in favor of Mike, a/k/a
Betimes, Inc., d/b/a Northern Pike Apartments (“Northern Pike”).1 We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant history underlying the instant
case as follows:
This matter[] involves two consolidated landlord-tenant
cases. At AR[-]16-002385, [Sayyed] sued [l]andlord [Northern
Pike], alleging various damages (e.g., return of: a security
deposit, an application fee, a credit check fee, surplus rent
____________________________________________
1 Final judgment was not entered in this case. Nevertheless, in the interest
of judicial economy, we will address the merits of the present appeal. See,
e.g., McCormick v. Ne. Bank of Pa., 561 A.2d 328, 330 n.1 (Pa. 1989)
(explaining that, “[a]lthough … the decision of the trial court dismissing
appellants’ motion for post-trial relief was not reduced to judgment by
praecipe of either party ..., in the interests of judicial economy, we shall regard
as done that which ought to have been done.”).
J-A17043-18
allegedly paid by [Sayyed], money [Sayyed] allegedly paid
[Northern Pike] for furniture that [Northern Pike] supposedly did
not provide, and court costs). At AR[-]16-002387, [Northern
Pike] sued [Sayyed], also alleging a variety of damages (e.g., past
due rent, property damage, and legal fees).
At the non-jury trial, each party testified to their respective
claims. The resolution of those claims turned on the court’s
credibility determinations. The [trial] court resolved credibility in
favor of [Northern Pike]. As such, the [trial] court entered a
verdict in [Northern Pike’s] favor and against [Sayyed] on
[Sayyed’s] claims at AR 16-002385. At AR[-]16-002387
([Northern Pike’s] claims against [Sayyed]), the [trial] court
likewise entered a verdict in favor of [Northern Pike] and against
[Sayyed]. The verdict was $1,300.00.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/26/18, at 1-2 (unnumbered) (citations omitted).
Sayyed filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the trial court
considered to be a post-trial motion. In his Motion, Sayyed challenged the
verdict, arguing that Northern Pike had committed fraud by unilaterally
changing the lease by lowering the rent from $750 to $700 without Sayyed’s
signature. The trial court denied Sayyed’s Motion. Thereafter, Sayyed filed
the instant appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise
Statement of matters complained of on appeal.2
____________________________________________
2 As the trial court observed in its Opinion, it is not clear from the record the
date the court mailed its Order for Sayyed to filed a concise statement of
matters complained of on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/26/18, at 3
(unnumbered). Consequently, the trial court declined to find that Sayyed’s
Concise Statement, filed on January 10, 2018, was untimely filed. See id.-2-
J-A17043-18
In his brief, Sayyed appears to challenge Northern Pike’s failure to allow
him to read the lease agreement (“Lease Agreement”).3 Brief for Appellant at
5. Sayyed claims that he had agreed to pay $600 per month in rent, but the
Lease Agreement printed the payment as $700 per month. Id. at 5-5A.
Sayyed directs our attention to the fact that Northern Pike accepted a January
2015 rent check of $600. Id. Sayyed argues that Northern Pike fraudulently
changed the monthly payment without his knowledge or the amount being
initialed in the Lease Agreement. Id. Sayyed also challenges Northern Pike’s
claims of damage to the apartment. Id. at 5A-5B. Finally, Sayyed states that
Northern Pike was aware that he was trying to secure custody of his children
from Children and Youth Family Services (“CYF”), and intended to live with
them at the apartment. Id. at 5B. According to Sayyed, CYF deemed the
apartment unsuitable for the children, and Sayyed appropriately informed
Northern Pike of the situation. Id. Sayyed takes exception to Northern Pike’s
attitude regarding the situation. Id.The standard of review applicable to a non-jury trial is as follows:
Our appellate role in cases arising from non[-]jury trial verdicts is
to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported
by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed
error in any application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial
____________________________________________
3 Sayyed’s appellate brief does not include a statement of the questions
involved, as is required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4). However, his Summary of
the Argument, found on page four of his brief, sets forth the questions raised
by Sayyed and accordingly, we will consider the claims raised on appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (stating that “[n]o question will be considered unless it is
stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”).
-3-
J-A17043-18
judge must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the
verdict of the jury. We consider the evidence in a light most
favorable to the verdict winner. We will reverse the trial court
only if its findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence
in the record or if its findings are premised on an error of law.
However, [where] the issue … concerns a question of law, our
scope of review is plenary.
The trial court’s conclusions of law on appeal originating from a
non-jury trial are not binding on an appellate court because it is
the appellate court’s duty to determine if the trial court correctly
applied the law to the facts of the case.
Gamesa Energy USA, LLC v. Ten Penn Ctr. Assocs., L.P., 181 A.3d 1188,
1191-92 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).4
It is not the role of an appellate court to pass on the credibility of
witnesses; hence we will not substitute our judgment for that of
the factfinder. Thus, the test we apply is not whether we would
have reached the same result on the evidence presented, but
rather, after due consideration of the evidence which the trial
court found credible, whether the trial court could have reasonably
reached its conclusion.
Mark Hershey Farms, Inc. v. Robinson, 171 A.3d 810, 814-15 (Pa. Super.
2017) (citation omitted).
____________________________________________
4We note that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has granted allowance of
appeal, in part, on unrelated issues. See Gamesa Energy USA, LLC v. Ten
Penn Ctr. Assocs., L.P., 2018 Pa. LEXIS 4258 *1 (Pa. 2018).
-4-
J-A17043-18
Applying the above-stated law to the instant case, we are unable to
afford Sayyed relief. Sayyed challenges the trial court’s credibility
determinations, and asks this Court to re-weigh the evidence. This we cannot
do. See id. As the trial court stated in its Opinion, the court “reached the
aforesaid verdicts after considering all [of] the evidence and making necessary
weight and credibility assessments.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/26/18, at 2
(unnumbered). That the trial court credited the evidence and testimony of
Northern Pike, over that presented by Sayyed, is within its province as fact-
finder. See Ferraro v. Temple Univ., 185 A.3d 396, 406 (Pa. 2018)
(recognizing that “[q]uestions of the weight of the evidence are solely the
province of the fact-finder—here, the trial court—who is free to believe or to
disbelieve any evidence it chooses.”). Accordingly, we cannot grant Sayyed
relief on his assertions.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/20/2018
-5-
Circulated 08/29/2018 04:00 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS QF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,. PENNSYLVANIA . . . ..
MANSOORSAYYED. CIVILDIVISION
Plaintif(, No. AR '16�23$5
MIKE,, a/k/a BETIMES, :INC; d!b/a
NQRTHER.NPIKEAPARTMENTS,,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM
This 'matters. involves two consolidated landlord-tenant cases. At AR. 16-002385, tenant
.Mansoor Sayyed ("Tenant") sued Landlord Mike, a/k/� Betimes, Inc. ("Landlord"), alleging
various damages ie.g., return off a .security deposit: .an application foe, 'cl credit check fee, surplus
tent allegedly JJaid by Tenant, money Tenant allegedly paid Landlord for furniture that Landlord
supposedly did not provide, and court costs); See. N. T. at l-'64._ At AR.16-002387, Landlord sued
tenant, also alleging cl variety of damages (e.g.; past due, rent, property damage, .and legal fees).
See N.T. atl.:64. -
Atthe non-jury trial.each patty testified to their respective claims. The resolution bf those.
claims turned; on the. court's credibility determinations, The court resolved credibility in favor of
Landlord. As such, the courtentered 'averdictin Landlord's.favorand against Tenant on Tenant's
claims at AR 16-002385.. See N.T. at -5.9_ At. AR 16,.ff0238:7 (Landlord's claims: against Tenant),
the. court Ulq�wise entered a verdict 'in favor of Landlord and against Tenant, See N .T. at 62-63.
The verdictwas'$1,JQO,QO� SeeJ{:T. at62 .. 63;
This' court reached: the aforesaid verdicts after considering all the evidence and making
necessary weight and credibility assessments. Such determinations were within. this court's
province to make. Ruthrauff, Inc: v, Rav in, Inc., 914 A,2c\.880,. 888 (Pa. Super. 2006). (indicating
weight and credibility determinations are for the factfinder). Furthermore, the· court's resolution
of the competing, claims, and this court's verdicts, were supported 'by competent evidence, See
N.T. at 1-64.
Tenant filed a motion for reconsideration which this court treated as a post-trial motion.
Tenant's motion, while. notparticularly clear, essentially argued that Landlord was not entitled to
the· verdict; and that 'Tenant should have prevailed, because the Landlord had committed a fraud
wherein he had unilaterally changed the lease, actually loweringthe rentfrom '$7�();0Q to $700.00,
Without obtaining.Tenant's signature.Tenant's post-trial
.
motion failed to persuadethiscourt
.
that
the court had committed any error at trial and/or that the verdictjs) should be- disturbed in anyway
for any reason-whether OIJ questions of Weight, 'Credibility or, for that matter, any other issue,
Accordingly, the court denied Sayyed 's motion. See Harman: v. Borah, 756 A,2cl U 16, 1122 (Pa.
2000} {indicating a new trial should be granted only where cl. mistake occurred at trial and the
mistake was sufficient to prejudice the· complaining.partyj.
tenant filed this appeal at 1873 WDA 2017'. Normally, a: .direct appeal fo a civil. case .lies
from the entry ofjudgment.and an appealfiledpriorthereto ispremature. K;H.v�J.R.�, 826 A2d
863, 87h72 (Pa. '.2003), If judgment is, entered after the appeal is fil�cl1 the appeal Will be treated
as having been filed after the entry of judgment and on the same date thereof. Id.; Pa.R.A.P,:
905( a). .In the instant case, judgment has not been. entered and, as such, this appeal appears to be
premature. K.H., 8:26 A:24 at 871- 72. However, this court is filing its opinion given the possibility
that judgment may be entered and' the Superior Court may determine that it has jurisdiction over
this matter. Id.On December 19, 2017, this court entered an order under Pa.RA.P .. 1925(b) .directing
Tenantto.file a statement of matters complained bf on.appeal within twenty-one days'. The.twenty-
one day deadline would normally have been J anuary 9, 2018, However, the docket indicates the
-order was not mailed until January 3, 2018 .. See Docket Entry Dated January 3, 2018.
Furthermore, whilenotreflected onthe docket.this court has reason to.believe thattheorder'may
not have been postmarked until January 4, 2018. Tenant filed his 1925(�) statement ort January
10, 201K Given the delay in. mailing, this court believes it would be 'inaccurate and inequitable to
find Tenant's statement late.
Tenant's 1925(b) statementreiterates his post-trial claim that Landlord engaged in fraud
and. that the, vetdic:t(s) should therefore. be reversed .. For the, reasons already stated .herein, Tenant
is due.. no relief on this claim.
Tenant's l925(b},statemertt also ·appeats to raise other Issues not preserved in his post-trial
motion, Matters not preserved by post-trial motion cannot: be raised on appeal. L.B. Foster
Company v. Lane. Enterprises; 7l0 A.2d 55, 55 (Pa. 1998). Tenant is therefore. .not entitled to
reliefon any sucb issues. Id. 'Moreover; even if'Tenanthad raised these additional issues via post-
trial 1110Hon, this court would not have granted .any reliefas they appear to involve matters of
weight and credibility, 'matters that. this court resolved .in Landlord's favor,
:BY THE COURT
./KP!_ .
_V .
-------=�
: -·
. ·.·.· .. _
. . ·
,1.
Arnold t. J(lein