LSF9 Master Part. v. Ehrensberger, T. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-A18010-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST                IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    v.
    THOMAS H. EHRENSBERGER
    Appellant                  No. 1239 WDA 2016
    Appeal from the Order July 20, 2016
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
    Civil Division at No(s): GD-10-012424
    BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS, AND OTT, JJ.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.:                         FILED JUNE 27, 2017
    Thomas H. Ehrensberger appeals pro se from the July 20, 2016 order
    denying his petition to open a default judgment. We dismiss this appeal.
    On June 30, 2010, Appellee’s predecessor-in-interest instituted this
    mortgage foreclosure action against Appellant, when he failed, starting on
    May 1, 2008, to make payments on a mortgage secured by property located
    at 123 Wedgewood Drive, Gibsonia. After proper notice, default judgment in
    the amount of $520,956.34 was entered on February 1, 2012, due to
    Appellant’s failure to file an answer.   The sheriff’s sale was stayed while
    Appellant participated in an Allegheny County program designed to save
    homes from foreclosure. On December 15, 2014, the stay on the case was
    lifted as the program proved ineffectual. Seventeen months later, on May
    J-A18010-17
    27, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to open the default judgment, which the
    trial court denied as untimely filed.   See Dumoff v. Spencer, 
    754 A.2d 1280
     (Pa.Super. 2000) (petition to open default judgment may be granted
    only when it is promptly filed; trial court properly denied petition to open
    when party waited eleven months to file petition to open default).
    This appeal followed.     Appellant’s brief fails to comply with any
    applicable rule of appellate procedure, he refers to no legal authority, and
    his argument is indecipherable.    Specifically, the brief does not contain a
    statement of jurisdiction, the text of the order on appeal, a statement of
    questions involved, a statement of the factual and procedural background of
    the case, a summary of the argument, a statement of our standard and
    scope of review, or a table of citations. Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114-2118. It is
    replete with factual assertions that are unsupported by reference to
    documents of record and contained in a reproduced record, which violates
    Pa.R.A.P. 2132. There is no legal authority cited. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (brief’s
    argument portion must include “discussion and citation of authorities as are
    deemed pertinent”).
    Since Appellant’s brief is so defective under the Rules of Appellate
    Procedure as to preclude effective appellate review, we will not consider the
    merits of his arguments. Karn v. Quick & Reilly Inc., 
    912 A.2d 329
    , 335
    (Pa.Super. 2006) (“this Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the
    appellant fails to conform substantially to the briefing requirements set forth
    -2-
    J-A18010-17
    in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure”).      Appellant’s failure to
    provide legal authority also results in waiver. Korn v. Epstein, 
    1727 A.2d 1130
    , 1135 (Pa.Super. 1999) (citation omitted) (“Where the appellant has
    failed to cite any authority in support of a contention, the claim is waived.”)
    Finally, we find waiver due to a lack of a discernable challenge to the ruling
    on appeal. Ibn-Sadiika v. Riester, 
    551 A.2d 1112
    , 1114 (Pa.Super. 1988)
    (“When an appellant fails to carry forward, or is indecipherably vague in,
    argumentation upon a certain point in his appellate brief, that point is
    waived.”).    Appellant’s pro se status does not absolve him of the
    responsibility to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, cite legal
    authorities, and develop cogent argument on the pertinent issue. First
    Union Mortg. Corp. v. Frempong, 
    744 A.2d 327
    , 337 (Pa.Super. 1999)
    (“pro se representation does not relieve appellant of his duty to properly
    raise and develop his appealable claims”)
    The April 27, 2017 Application for Voluntary Substitution of Appellee
    and Entry of Appearance is granted. LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST
    is substituted as the Appellee in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.
    -3-
    J-A18010-17
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 6/27/2017
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: LSF9 Master Part. v. Ehrensberger, T. No. 1239 WDA 2016

Filed Date: 6/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024