City of Bethlehem v. A.S. Kanofsky, City of Bethlehem v. A.S. Kanofsky

Kanofsky owned property in Bethlehem; the City filed a scire facias to reduce 2015 delinquent real estate taxes to judgment.
Kanofsky filed a pro se document titled a "Brief in Response" and a separate "Counter Complaint;" the trial court treated the response as an Affidavit of Defense and the counter complaint as improper.
The City moved for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense under the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act.
The trial court granted the City’s motion, entered judgment for $3,122.10 (with interest), and denied Kanofsky’s counterclaim.
On appeal, Kanofsky filed a Rule 1925(b) statement raising issues unrelated to the sufficiency of his affidavit of defense.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding (1) Kanofsky waived appellate issues not in his Rule 1925(b) statement and (2) his affidavit/counter-complaint did not raise any cognizable defense to the tax claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kanofsky’s Affidavit of Defense sufficiently denied the City’s tax claim	City: affidavit fails to raise any factual or legal matters disputing existence, validity, or amount of delinquent taxes; judgment is proper	Kanofsky: (as reflected in pro se filings) raised various allegations and a countercomplaint asserting defenses and other claims unrelated to tax liability	Held: Affidavit and countercomplaint did not challenge the tax delinquency or amount; no material factual issues; judgment for City affirmed
Whether Kanofsky could proceed by a countercomplaint outside the statutory scire facias defenses	City: statutory scheme (MCTLA) provides exclusive method—defenses must be in affidavit of defense, not a countercomplaint	Kanofsky: attempted to assert claims via countercomplaint appended to his filings	Held: Countercomplaint is improper under the MCTLA; any defenses must be asserted in the scire facias affidavit of defense
Whether appellate issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) are preserved	City: Rule 1925(b) required; issues not raised are waived	Kanofsky: raised other issues in appellate brief but not in Rule 1925(b) statement	Held: Court enforces Rule 1925(b); issues not raised there are waived, so appeal limited to sufficiency of affidavit

Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 1925(b) requires appellants to raise issues when ordered; failure results in waiver)
W. Clinton Cnty. Mun. Auth. v. Estate of Rosamilia, 826 A.2d 52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (procedure for judgment on insufficient affidavit of defense is analogous to judgment on the pleadings)
Borough of Fairview v. Property Located at Tax Index No. 48-67-4, 453 A.2d 728 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (affidavits of defense to municipal lien claims must be certain and definite)
Pfister v. City of Phila., 963 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (review of judgment on pleadings considers legal error or unresolved material facts)
N. Coventry Twp. v. Tripodi, 64 A.3d 1128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (when statute provides exclusive remedy, parties must follow that statutory procedure and not use separate counterclaims)