Bisbing, E., Jr. v. Kugler, B.
227 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Bruce and Lori Kugler rented residential property from Beth Bisbing.
- May 20, 2016 trial court order: Kuglers must either purchase the property within 60 days or permit access so a listing agreement could be prepared to market and sell the property.
- Beth Bisbing filed a Petition for Contempt and Possession on November 14, 2016, alleging the Kuglers failed to comply with the May 20 order.
- After a hearing, the trial court granted Bisbing’s Petition on December 30, 2016.
- Kuglers appealed; their appellate brief contained multiple procedural and briefing defects (conflicting statements of the appealed order, missing Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and trial court order, failure to organize arguments and cite authority/record).
- Superior Court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with appellate rules, precluding meaningful review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is properly before the Superior Court | Bisbing: appeal lies from the underlying final order (trial court’s contempt/possession order) | Kuglers: attempted to appeal an order denying reconsideration (misstated) | Appeal dismissed for failure to properly identify appealable order and briefing defects |
| Whether brief preserved issues for review | Bisbing: deficiencies waive arguments not developed per Pa.R.A.P. | Kuglers: raised four questions but failed to develop them separately or cite record/authority | Issues deemed waived due to inadequate appellate brief |
| Whether appellate brief complied with Pa.R.A.P. requirements | Bisbing: strict compliance required to allow meaningful review | Kuglers: omitted required documents (Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement, trial court order) and failed to structure arguments | Noncompliance justified dismissal of appeal |
| Whether Superior Court should develop Kuglers’ arguments | Bisbing: Court should not act as counsel to develop arguments | Kuglers: relied on conclusory assertions (e.g., Landlord Tenant Act exclusivity) without analysis | Court declined to develop arguments and dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate briefs must materially conform to Pa.R.A.P.; noncompliance may warrant dismissal)
- Karn v. Quick & Reilly Inc., 912 A.2d 329 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate arguments not developed according to rules may be waived)
- Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2007) (defective briefs that impede meaningful review may result in dismissal or waiver)
- T.W. v. D.A., 127 A.3d 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) (orders denying reconsideration are not appealable; appeal lies from the underlying final order)