GLTM Properties v. Rizvi, K. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A09002-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 GLTM PROPERTIES, LLC, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. KAISER RIZVI, SARMIN RIZVI AND FRAGRANCE MANIA, INC., Appellants No. 1069 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Dated March 7, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2012-29570 BEFORE: BOWES, OTT, and JENKINS, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED APRIL 23, 2014 Kaiser Rizvi1 has filed a pro se brief in this appeal from the March 7, 2013 order denying a motion for allowance to file an appeal nunc pro tunc from judgment entered by a magisterial district justice. The counseled ____________________________________________ 1 In his brief, Kaiser Rizvi purports to represent the interests of his wife Sarmin Rizvi and his corporation, Fragrance Mania, Inc. However, he is not a licensed attorney and cannot pursue this appeal on their behalf. Nonlawyers may not represent parties before the courts. Kohlman v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital, 652 A.2d 849 (Pa.Super. 1994); Commonwealth v. Carroll, 517 A.2d 980, 981 (Pa.Super. 1986); see also Osei-Afriyie by Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876 (3rd Cir. 1991) (father, who was not a licensed attorney, could not represent his children for purposes of pursuing malpractice action). Since Sarmin Rizvi has not filed a pro se or counseled brief, and since the corporation has not filed a counseled brief, the appeal is dismissed as to those Appellants. We will refer in the writing to Kaiser Rizvi as the sole Appellant. J-A09002-14 motion was filed on behalf of Appellants, Kaiser and Sarmin Rizvi and Fragrance Mania, Inc. We affirm. On November 20, 2012, Appellee GLTM Properties, LLC, instituted this action by filing a notice of entry of judgment against Kaiser and Sarmin Rizvi upon an award by a magisterial district justice of $5,272.52 on a nonresidential lease in favor of Appellee. The record establishes that the Rizvis, as corporate officers of Fragrance, executed a lease between Appellee, as landlord, and Fragrance, as tenant. The lease contained a personal guaranty corporate officers and shareholders of Tenant, and that as an inducement to Landlord affording Tenant this Lease Agreement, they personally guaranty Appeal of the Judgment Entered on July 25, 2012, as a Nunc Pro Tunc Appeal at Exhibit A (Lease Agreement, 11/12/10), at ยง 16.17. The judgment of the magisterial district justice was entered separately against each named defendant in this lawsuit. Notice of the judgment was ARTY AGGRIEVED BY A JUDGMENT INVOLVING A NONRESIDENTIAL LEASE MAY APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURTS OF THE COURT OF COMMON -2- J-A09002-14 On December 24, 2012, the defendants filed a counseled motion for allowance of a nunc pro tunc appeal from the July 25, 2012 judgment entered by the magisterial district. The court conducted a hearing on the motion. Appellant, who was represented by Philip J. Berg, Esquire, at that time, was the sole witness at the hearing. Appellant admitted that Appellee was not paid rent due under the lease arrangement. Appellant also indicated that he appeared before the magistrate and that he was present when Appellee prevailed against all three defendants. N.T. Hearing, 3/7/13, at 8. Appellant maintained that judgment was improperly entered against him and his wife individually in that they executed the lease agreement solely in their capacity as officers of the corporation. On cross-examination, Appellant admitted that he read the lease before executing it and that it contained the personal guarantee outlined above. went to the Norristown courthouse intending to file an appeal and was told Id. at 9. Since he did not have the money, Appellant did not file the appeal. Appellant admitted that he consulted with an attorney in September 2012, and was told at that time that he only had to pay $250 plus a court fee in Id. at 22. On March 7, 2013, the trial court denied the motion for allowance to appeal nunc pro tunc. Counsel filed the notice of appeal from the March 7, -3- J-A09002-14 2013 order, but Appellant has filed a pro se brief. He presents these issues for our review: 1. Whether a judgment entered incorrectly/illegally against individuals and a corporation should be open as corporate officers only signed lease? 2. Whether an unrepresentative individual not learned in the law should be allowed to open judgment incorrectly/illegally that was entered against corporation and individuals when judgment should have been only against corporation? 3. Whether any delay in filing appeal should be set aside when unrepresented parties were misled by the need for paying significant amount when appealing case; whereas when counsel was hired, filed appeal based upon an incorrect/illegal judgment that was entered and there was no need to post high sum? Before reaching the merits of the appeal, which involve the first two contentions on appeal, we preliminarily must address the final one, which is whether Appellant was improperly denied the right to appeal nunc pro tunc from the judgment entered by the magisterial district justice. Whether to grant a request for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Fischer v. UPMC Northwest, 34 A.3d 115 (Pa.Super. 2011). Such an appeal will be granted if the delay in filing d by extraordinary circumstances involving fraud or Id where court personnel were negligent, operated improperly, or unintentionally misled a party. Id. Alternatively, an appeal nunc pro tunc -4- J-A09002-14 -negligent circumstances related to appellant, appellant's counsel, or an agent of Id. at 120 n.2 (citation omitted). Reinstatement of appellate rights will be reinstated under the latter scenario only if, inter alia, Id. The present case involves both set of circumstances. Appellant did not he was given incorrect information by a clerk at the courthouse. However, he consulted an attorney in September 2012 and received the correct facts. Then, there was a second time lapse in that he did not file a petition to 2012, two months after speaking with the lawyer. Appellant claimed that he did not file a timely appeal from the courthouse that he had to pay more than $5,000 to appeal. In this respect, the trial court specifically found that Appellant was not credible when he stated that someone at the courthouse falsely informed him that he had to pay the entire judgment in order to appeal. Trial Court Opinion, 6/4/13, at 3. It based this credibility determination on the fact that Appellant was unable to provide any specifics about the date of the conversation, its details, or with whom he spoke. It therefore concluded that Appellant had -5- J-A09002-14 delay in filing an appeal. Additionally, there was a significant delay between the time when Appellant was given the correct information about the amount that he had to pay to appeal and when Appellant filed the petition seeking reinstatement of his appellate rights. In this respect, the trial court held that Appellant did not successfully establish that non-negligent circumstances caused that 2012, yet the motion to appeal nunc pro tunc was filed December 24, 2012. Counsel offers no non-negligent reaso Id. The trial court, which heard and observed Appellant at the hearing, found Appellant not credible when he said he was misinformed at the courthouse about the filing requirements for an appeal from the magisterial district justice. We must accept that determination, which is supported by the record. Ferko-Fox v. Fox Court must defer to the trial court's determinations regarding the credibility , Appellant did not establish a a non-negligent reason for his failure to file an immediate request for reinstatement of his appellate rights in September 2012, when he consulted with a lawyer. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing -6- J-A09002-14 nunc pro tunc from the magisterial district justice. Finally, we observe that Appellant has failed to cite any legal authority whatsoever in his brief. Indeed, his argument speaks to the merits of the underlying judgment rather than the actual ruling that we must examine on Hence, he has waived his arguments on appeal. In re Estate of Whitley, portion of an appellate brief must include a pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. This Court will not consider the merits of an argument which fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority. Failure to cite relevant legal to file a timely appeal precludes consideration of the merits. Sarmin Rizvi and Fragrance Mania, Inc. are dismissed as Appellants due to their failure to file a brief. Order affirmed as to Kaiser Rizvi. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/23/2014 -7-
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.
