Plymouth Meeting v. Mahmood (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S13024-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PLYMOUTH MEETING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY ITS AGENT PREIT SERVICES LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SHAHID MAHMOOD Appellant No. 1397 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 10-20187 PR PLYMOUTH MEETING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY ITS AGENT: PREIT SERVICES, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SHAHID MAHMOOD T/A THE PERFUME SHOPPE AND SUMAIRA AHMED T/A THE PERFUME SHOPPE Appellant No. 1497 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Dated April 18, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 10-20187 BEFORE: BOWES, J., GANTMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: Filed: March 5, 2013 J-S13024-13 Appellant, Shahid Mahmood, appeals from the orders entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, denying the petitions to strike and/or open a confessed judgment. We affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history as follows: On October 30, 2008, [Landlord] and [Tenants][1] entered into a twenty-four month lease agreement for commercial space located at the Plymouth Meeting Mall, 500 W. Germantown Pike, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania 19462. The lease agreement expired March 31, 2011. Pursuant to the lease agreement, [Tenants] were responsible for a monthly rent payment of $2,916.73, utilities and other charges set forth in the agreement, payable on the first day of every month. [Tenants] were responsible for late fees of five cents for every overdue dollar, pursuant to section 4.08 of the lease agreement. [Tenants] defaulted under the terms of their agreement for failing to pay the monthly rent and associated fees as well as prematurely vacating the premises in violation of section 16.01(c) of the lease agreement. As of June 17, 2010, [Tenants ] balance in unpaid rent, fees and penalties totaled $14,239.99. [Landlord] filed a confession of judgment against [Tenants] on July 15, 2010, seeking unpaid rent and associated fees, penalty fees, accelerated rent, and attorneys fees totaling $42,316.38. On August 16, 2010 [Tenants] filed a petition for relief from judgment entered by confession. Subsequently, on August 25, 2010, [Appellant] filed a second motion to strike and/or open confessed judgment raising new ____________________________________________ 1 Appellant and Sumaria Ahmed executed the Lease as Tenants. Appellant is the only party to this appeal. Tenants refers to Appellant and Sumaria Ahmed collectively. -2- J-S13024-13 defenses, in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (Trial Court Opinion, dated July 17, 2012, at 1-2). On April 18, 2012, the court denied relief. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on May 17, 2012. The court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant raises one issue for our review: IS IT AN ERROR OF LAW NOT TO REFER A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT TO A JURY WHEN [APPELLANT S] NAME IS FORGED ON A CONTRACT AND WITNESSES ADMIT THAT [APPELLANT] IS A VICTIM? (Appellant s Brief at 3). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Bernard Moore, we conclude Appellant s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, dated July 17, 2012, at 2-3) (finding: first petition to strike failed to point to specific defect in record; Appellant s filing of second petition to strike, where he raised forgery claim, violated procedural rule requiring all defenses to be set forth in single petition; failure to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 2959(a)(1) waived forgery defense; moreover, Appellant admitted signing lease, and his forgery claim is baseless). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. Orders affirmed. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
