Crooked Lane Crossing Condo v. Volkova, A. (judgment order)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S14018-20 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CROOKED LANE CROSSING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. ALINA VOLKOVA A/K/A ALINA VOLKOVA-BURDA (ALINA BURDA) APPEAL OF: ALINA VOLKOVA A/K/A ALINA VOLKOVA-BURDA (ALINA BURDA) AND STEVEN BURDA : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1647 EDA 2019 Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2018-03402 BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 27, 2020 Appellant, Alina Volkova a/k/a Alina Burda, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which denied 19 of Appellant’s miscellaneous motions and granted one motion of Appellee, Crooked Lane Crossing Condominium Association, in this condominium fee dispute. On February 13 2018, Appellee filed a complaint against Appellant for unpaid condominium assessments and fees. Appellant filed preliminary objections, which the trial court overruled on May 15, 2018. Appellant appealed. This Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory on August 14, 2018, and our Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on May 8, 2019. Appellant filed no answer, and on June 20, 2018, the trial court entered default judgment in favor of Appellee for $43,962.95. On November 29, 2018, J-S14018-20 Appellee filed a praecipe for writ of execution on the judgment. Subsequently, Appellant and her husband, Steven Burda, who has never been a party to this case, made countless filings in the trial court.1 Relevant to this appeal, Appellant and/or Mr. Burda filed 19 motions for various relief, and in response, Appellee filed a motion for contempt and sanctions. On May 22, 2019, the court denied Appellant’s/Mr. Burda’s motions and granted Appellee’s motion.2 Appellant appealed pro se on June 10, 2019, and filed a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement on July 2, 2019.3 On December 30, 2019, Appellee filed an application to quash, which this Court deferred to the merits panel. Preliminarily, appellate briefs must conform in all material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with the Rules. Id.; Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa.Super. 2003). Although this Court may liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. Id. As well, where an appellant fails to raise or properly ____________________________________________ The trial court docket sheet lists over 1,350 entries, the overwhelming majority of which represent Appellant’s and/or Mr. Burda’s filings. 1 A February 15, 2019 order denying five other filings of Appellant and/or Mr. Burda is also on appeal before this Court at Docket No. 919 EDA 2019. 2 Appellant and/or Mr. Burda subsequently filed in this Court approximately 42 applications for relief, most of which were frivolous or redundant, resulting in per curiam orders imposing upon them fines and sanctions. 3 -2- J-S14018-20 develop her issues on appeal, or where her brief is wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits of the claims raised. Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super 2006). Instantly, Appellant’s pro se brief is substantially non-compliant with the relevant rules of appellate procedure. For example, Appellant’s statement of the case lacks a chronological statement containing relevant facts necessary to resolve this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4). Likewise, Appellant does not provide any recitation of the history of the proceedings and the respective contentions of the parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(b). Additionally, the statement of the case improperly includes legal argument. See id. Even more significantly, Appellant’s “argument” contains a list of case citations, with out-of-context quotations from the cited cases, and a string of statutory citations. Appellant does not explain how the cited authority is relevant to her appeal or apply the legal propositions contained therein to the facts of her case. Specifically, Appellant repeatedly states the court “gaslighted” her and violated her due process rights in various ways, without referencing relevant authority or citing to the record. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.Super. 2007) (stating: “[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal authorities”); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c), (d). Essentially, Appellant provides nothing more than an incomprehensible attack on the trial -3- J-S14018-20 court’s ruling. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Also, the argument section is not divided into separate sections for each of Appellant’s ten questions presented. See id. Further, the argument section contains a practically verbatim reproduction of Appellant’s rambling nine page “concise” statement. Appellant’s blatant failure to comply with the briefing rules and develop her issues on appeal into a cogent legal argument prevents meaningful review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Lyons, supra. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.4 Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/27/2020 ____________________________________________ 4 Based upon our disposition, we deny as moot Appellee’s application to quash. -4-

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.