Com. v. Faith, M., Com. v. Faith, M. No. 920 WDA 2016

Appellant Matthew J. Faith owns rental property in West Homestead and received notices for violations of the borough’s property maintenance ordinances.
He was convicted by a magisterial district judge, appealed for a de novo trial in the Court of Common Pleas, and was given opportunities (including a 90-day postponement) to correct violations but failed to cure them.
At the common pleas hearing, the borough/Commonwealth introduced evidence (including photographs and witness testimony) that violations remained; the trial court found violations and imposed $1,200 in fines.
Appellant timely appealed pro se and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement alleging (among other things) that he made repairs, had disabilities and financial hardship, and that the borough witness misstated the extent of unaddressed violations.
The Superior Court found Appellant waived most issues for failure to include them in the 1925(b) statement and held the remaining preserved issues were inadequately developed in his brief; thus all appellate claims were waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court considered improper evidence of ongoing prior conditions	Faith: court improperly allowed solicitor to reference ongoing condition/prior matters	Commonwealth: evidence about ongoing condition relevant to whether violations persisted	Waived—issue not preserved in 1925(b) and otherwise unsupported in brief
Whether Appellant made substantial repairs before hearing such that fines should be dismissed	Faith: he worked on property, met with borough inspector, showed progress and was told not to be fined if "working with them"	Commonwealth: evidence showed violations remained and repairs were insufficient	Waived—preserved in 1925(b) but inadequately developed in brief, so not reviewed
Whether lack of repairs was excusable due to disability, lack of funds, and pest damage	Faith: disability, need to earn funds, and carpenter-ant damage delayed completion	Commonwealth: continued noncompliance despite accommodations and postponement	Waived—insufficiently developed on appeal
Whether borough witness’s statements that violations were unaddressed were false	Faith: witness observed progress and mischaracterized conditions	Commonwealth: witness testimony supported trial court findings	Waived—insufficient briefing and preservation issues

Commonwealth v. Rolan, 964 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 2008) (issues not included in a court-ordered 1925(b) statement are waived)
Commonwealth v. Reigel, 75 A.3d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for summary-conviction de novo appeals)
Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249 (Pa. Super. 2002) (same)
Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellant bears burden to show errors and entitlement to relief)
Rich v. Acrivos, 815 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. 2003) (pro se litigants receive liberal construction but no special advantage)
Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2006) (briefing requirements and waiver for undeveloped arguments)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (single-sentence or undeveloped appellate arguments are waived)