Chaudhry, I. v. Doe, J. ( 2023 )

J-S11032-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
IMTIAZ CHAUDHRY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JOHN J. HUNT, III, JOHN DOE, :
UNKNOWN OCCUPANT :
:
:
APPEAL OF: JOHN J. HUNT, III : No. 2612 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 30, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2021-03098
BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED AUGUST 29, 2023
Appellant, John J. Hunt, III, appeals pro se from the judgment entered
in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which granted immediate
possession of property to Appellee, Imtiaz Chaudhry. We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this
appeal as follows:
On April 26, 2021, Appellee filed an amended complaint
against Appellant and unknown occupants at the property
to obtain possession of the land following a foreclosure
action in which the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale on
June 26, 2019 to U.S. Bank, National Association, who gave
title to Appellee on November 10, 2020. Appellant has
continued to occupy the property since the sheriff’s sale
without permission of the owner. The counts in the
amended complaint were for ejectment, trespass and rent
and mesne profits. [On February 2, 2022, Appellee filed a
motion for summary judgment. Appellant responded,
opposing the motion, on February 6, 2022.] On May 12,
2022, [the] court granted Appellee’s motion for summary
judgment as to count 1, ejectment, and count II, trespass,
J-S11032-23
but denied it as to count III, rent and mesne profits. No
appeal was taken from this order.
On July 5, 2022, [the] court scheduled argument to address
count III for August 3, 2022. Appellant failed to appear at
the scheduled court date and [the] court relisted this matter
for a hearing on September 13, 2022. Appellant failed to
appear at the hearing despite being served with the order.
Appellee orally motioned to dismiss count III[. The trial
court granted the motion] and further ordered immediate
possession of the property to [Appellee].
On September 1[9], 2022, Appellant filed a motion to strike
the judgment for possession of the premises. [The c]ourt
treated the motion as a notice of appeal … and directed
Appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained
of on appeal in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within
twenty-one (21) days. On September 30, 2022, Appellee
filed [a] praecipe for judgment in ejectment and praecipe
for writ of possession. On October 2, 2022, Appellant filed
a notice of appeal and a motion to strike the writ of
possession and impose supersedeas on appeal. On October
4, 2022, Appellant filed a timely statement of matters
complained of on appeal.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/17/22, at 1-2) (unnecessary capitalization
omitted).
Appellant raises the following four issues on appeal:
I. Does Pa.R.C.P. 227.4 allow the Prothonotary to enter
“Summary Judgment as a matter of Legal Opinion” or
“Summary Verdict” into Final Judgment under the rule of
procedure, leading to the issuance of Writ to the Sheriff?
II. Will “Summary Judgment as Matter of Law” determine
the verdict or the jurisdiction? Is the Defendant required to
rebut the Plaintiff, or is the Plaintiff required to prove their
complaint to the fact finder under Art 1. Pa. Const.?
III. Did jurisdiction fail under Pa.R.C.P. 1054(b) when the
amended complaint failed to “abstract the title back to
common source of possession” within 21 years, and
-2-
J-S11032-23
moreover failed to raise any claim in Pa.R.C.P. 1061(b)?
IV. Does the action of ejectment being in the nature of
“equitable bill to redeem” by settled precedent run to our
counterclaim under Pa.R.C.P. 1061(b)(4), where the trial
court must impose a constructive trust or similar remedy?
(Appellant’s Brief at 6-7).
Preliminarily, it is well settled that “Rule 1925 is a crucial component of
the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify and focus on
those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.” Kanter v. Epstein, 866
A.2d 394, 400 (Pa.Super. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092, 126 S.Ct. 1048,
163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006). “The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling
or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify
all pertinent issues for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii).
This Court has considered the question of what constitutes
a sufficient [concise] statement on many occasions, and it
is well-established that [an a]ppellant’s concise statement
must properly specify the error to be addressed on appeal.
The [concise] statement must be specific enough for the
trial court to identify and address the issue an appellant
wishes to raise on appeal. Further, this Court may find
waiver where a concise statement is too vague. When a
court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing,
that is not enough for meaningful review. A [c]oncise
[s]tatement which is too vague to allow the court to identify
the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no
[c]oncise [s]tatement at all.
In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 350 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
Here, the trial court decided that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement
was “incoherent and vague as to legal error.” (Trial Court Opinion at 7). The
court explained:
-3-
J-S11032-23
Appellant fails to specifically identify how [the court]
committed an error of law, erred in interpreting the law,
and/or failed to apply the appropriate standard of review.
Therefore the issues must be deemed waived because they
are too vague to enable this Court to satisfy its obligation
under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) to prepare an opinion addressing
them.
(Id. at 8).1 We agree with the trial court’s analysis that Appellant’s Rule
1925(b) statement was insufficient to permit the trial court to identify the
issues Appellant sought to raise on appeal. Appellant’s appellate issues are
waived on this basis. See In re A.B., supra. Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment affirmed.
Judge McLaughlin joins this memorandum.
Judge Olson concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/29/2023
____________________________________________
1 Notwithstanding its waiver analysis, the court provided reasons for its ruling,
explaining that it granted Appellee’s request to dismiss count III after
Appellant twice failed to appear at court proceedings to address that count
and Appellee orally motioned to dismiss it. The court further opined that there
was no error of law in granting Appellee’s request to dismiss count III, and
because there were no matters pending before the court it was appropriate to
grant Appellee immediate possession of the property. (Id.)
-4-