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

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S14017-20 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CROOKED LANE CROSSING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION : : : : : : : : : : : Appellee v. ALINA VOLKOVA A/K/A ALINA BURDA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 919 EDA 2019 Appeal from the Order Entered February 15, 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 five of Appellant’s miscellaneous motions in this condominium fee dispute. On February 13 2018, Appellee, Crooked Lane Crossing Condominium Association, 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. Meanwhile, Appellant filed no answer, and on June 20, 2018, the trial court entered default judgment against Appellant and in favor of Appellee for $43,962.95. On J-S14017-20 November 29, 2018, 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: (i) an emergency motion for stay or to enjoin Appellee from collecting on the judgment; (ii) an emergency motion for copies of exhibits; (iii) an emergency motion to declare void ab initio the default judgment and writ of execution; (iv) a motion for sanctions for failure to respond to discovery requests; and (v) a motion for sanctions for failure to appear at depositions. The court denied all five motions on February 15, 2019.2 On March 15, 2019, Appellant timely filed a pro se appeal.3 On December 18, 2019, Appellee filed in this Court an application to quash, which this Court deferred to the merits panel on January 27, 2020. 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 ____________________________________________ 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 May 22, 2019 order denying approximately 20 distinct subsequent filings of Appellant and/or Mr. Burda is also on appeal before this Court at Docket No. 1647 EDA 2019. 2 Appellant and/or Mr. Burda subsequently filed in this Court approximately 45 applications for relief, most of which were frivolous, resulting in per curiam orders imposing upon them fines and sanctions and deactivating Appellant’s access to the e-filing systems of this Court and the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. 3 -2- J-S14017-20 appellant fails to conform to 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. Additionally, where an appellant fails to raise or properly 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) (explaining arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived, such as those arguments where party has failed to cite relevant supporting authority). 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. Further, and even more significantly, Appellant’s “argument” section is merely 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 these cases are relevant to her appeal or apply the legal propositions contained therein to the facts of her case. Essentially, Appellant provides nothing more than an incomprehensible attack on the trial court’s ruling. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). -3- J-S14017-20 Also, the argument section is not divided into separate sections for each question to be argued. See id. Appellant’s blatant failure to comply with the briefing rules and develop her issues on appeal into a cogent legal argument prevents meaningful review of her claims. 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.