Manayunk Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment

247 A.3d 1192 (Table)

MANAYUNK NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, INC. and John Hunter and Kevin Smith, Appellants

v.ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and Allegheny Distribution & Delivery and 4048 Main LP and Gary Geuyrtz and Susan Geuyrtz

No. 516 C.D. 2019

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: November 12, 2020

FILED: January 21, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH

The Manayunk Neighborhood Council, Inc., John Hunter, and Kevin Smith (collectively, MNC)¹ appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) dated March 6, 2019, which granted Allegheny Distribution & Delivery, 4048 Main, LP, Gary Geuyrtz, and Susan Geuyrtz's² (collectively, Intervenors)³ motion to dismiss MNC's appeal from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Philadelphia (Board) for noncompliance with the trial court's amended scheduling order by failing to file its brief in support of its appeal. Upon review, we affirm.

The background and procedural history of this matter are as follows. Although the underlying merits of the Board's decision are not presently at issue, we note that Intervenors sought multiple variances for property they own, which were denied by the City of Philadelphia Department of Licenses & Inspections (L&I). (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 3a.) Intervenors appealed to the Board, and MNC opposed the variances. (R.R. at 3a-11a.) The Board reversed the L&I's decision and granted Intervenors variances for a proposed mixed-use of its commercial/residential property located at 4044-4050 Main Street, Manayunk, Pennsylvania (Property). (R.R. at 24a, 90a-103a.)

MNC appealed to the trial court. (Trial Ct. Op. at 1.) On September 6, 2018, the trial court issued a scheduling order, which required the Board to file its record by November 5, 2018, and for MNC to file its brief by December 3, 2018. Id . The Board filed its certified record late on December 27, 2018, and simultaneously filed a motion for extraordinary relief, requesting an extension to give the parties adequate time to file their briefs. Id . at 1-2. On January 9, 2019, the trial court issued an amended scheduling order, which required MNC to file its brief by January 28, 2019. Id . at 2. MNC never filed a brief or requested an extension, and Intervenors filed a motion to dismiss MNC's appeal due to noncompliance with the trial court's amended scheduling order. Id . MNC answered the motion to dismiss on February 27, 2019, claiming that it did not file its brief because counsel's hard drive crashed on January 26, 2019, and it took two weeks to repair. Id . On March 6, 2019, the trial court granted Intervenors’ motion and dismissed MNC's appeal with prejudice. Id .

MNC filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's March 6, 2019, order and the trial court ordered MNC to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). (Trial Ct. Op. at 2.) MNC filed its statement (1925(b) Statement) on May 1, 2019. Id .

In its opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court explained that it properly dismissed MNC's appeal for failure to comply with its orders. Id . at 4. Citing King v. City of Philadelphia , 102 A.3d 1073, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), the trial court reasoned that it had the inherent power to enforce its orders and judgments, and to that end could dismiss a case based on a party's failure to follow its procedural rules, i.e. , a scheduling order. (Trial Ct. Op. at 5.) The trial court concluded that it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case, and that MNC had an affirmative duty to prosecute its appeal and to meet all court-imposed deadlines to preserve its appeal. Id . Accordingly, the trial court determined that when MNC disregarded its amended scheduling order and failed to file its brief by January 28, 2019, it had the power to dismiss the appeal. Id . The trial court also concluded that MNC failed to put forth adequate reasons and cited no case law to excuse its delay. Id . Significantly, the trial court noted that MNC failed to ask for an extension, or otherwise notify the court or Intervenors’ counsel that it would be delayed in filing its brief. Id .

Aside from dismissing MNC's appeal for failing to file a brief, the trial court also determined that MNC's 1925(b) Statement was vague and incomprehensible. Relying on Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)(4)(ii), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii), the trial court concluded that MNC failed to concisely identify each ruling or error with sufficient detail to preserve an issue for review. Id . Specifically, the trial court explained that MNC's 1925(b) Statement was redundant, vague, lengthy, and incoherent, and was defective insofar as it prevented the trial court from understanding the specific issues raised on appeal. Id . at 3. In other words, the trial court determined that MNC's 1925(b) Statement was functionally equivalent to not having filed any statement at all. Id . at 3-4. Importantly, the trial court explained that MNC, "having failed to meet its filing deadline, cannot coopt this appeal to the Commonwealth Court to address issues that should have been raised in its Brief in Support of Appeal, which to date has not been filed, in violation of this Court's Amended Scheduling Order." Id . at 4.

Nevertheless, the trial court endeavored, to the best of its ability, to identify the issues raised on appeal. (Trial Ct. Op. at 3.) The trial court identified the following issues that it believed MNC attempted to raise on appeal. We summarize these issues as follows: First, whether the trial court erred by quashing the appeal before the Board issued the appealable decision, i.e. , a written decision explaining the reasons for the disposition. Id . Second, whether the Board's record was incomplete and the trial court heard new evidence, requiring it to undertake fact-finding. Id . Third, whether the trial court erred in allowing the Board to "create new findings," and refusing to allow MNC to address the new findings. Id . Specifically, whether the trial court erroneously dismissed the case without giving MNC extra time to "deal with a ‘decision’ [consisting] of post-hoc findings of fact ...." Id .

Discussion

On appeal,⁴ MNC raises numerous issues and arguments which are not properly before this Court due to its failure to properly raise them before the trial court. In sum, MNC argues that: (1) the Board erred because it did not issue an appealable decision in writing, (2) the record filed by the Board is incomplete, and the trial court heard new evidence in considering Intervenors’ motion to dismiss, and (3) the Board erred in issuing "post-hoc" findings and delegating fact-finding to its solicitor. None of these issues are germane to the instant appeal, and therefore do not bear repeating in detail. Based on the import of the trial court's ruling, in this procedural posture, there is a single issue before us: whether the trial court erred in granting Intervenors’ motion to dismiss MNC's appeal for failing to file its brief in support of its appeal .⁵

The Intervenors largely echo the trial court's reasoning. Intervenors maintain that the dismissal of MNC's appeal was not erroneous because MNC failed to file its brief in support within the time period prescribed in the trial court's scheduling order. Intervenors also allege that MNC failed to raise any issue on appeal because its 1925(b) Statement was so vague and deficient that it failed to identify any error committed by the trial court in dismissing the appeal.

A. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing MNC's appeal for failing to file its brief in support of its appeal before the trial court.

It is well-established that courts possess the inherent power to enforce their orders and decrees by imposing penalties and sanctions for failure to comply with them. Davis v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority , 680 A.2d 1223, 1226 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (citing Brocker v. Brocker , 241 A.2d 336 (Pa. 1968) ). Indeed, the trial court has the power to promulgate and enforce procedural rules. Haney v. Sabia , 428 A.2d 1041, 1043 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). Our review of a trial court's order imposing sanctions for failing to comply with a procedural rule is under the abuse of discretion standard. Cook v. City of Philadelphia Civil Service Commission , 201 A.3d 922, 925 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). "A court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law, exercises its judgment in a manifestly unreasonable manner, or reaches a conclusion as a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will." In re Private Tax Sale of Premises 214 Plushmill Road, Nether Providence Township, Delaware County , 533 A.2d 1117, 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). Importantly, a moving party has "an affirmative duty to prosecute the appeal he filed." King , 102 A.3d at 1077.

Because the trial court was acting in an appellate capacity, we must note the following. Where a full record is made before the local agency, a trial court reviews the appeal as an appellate court. Cook , 201 A.3d at 926 (citing King , 102 A.3d at 1076 ). Even when acting as an appellate court, "the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply to a trial court acting in an appellate capacity on a local agency appeal unless the county where that trial court sits has specifically adopted the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure." Cook , 201 A.3d at 926. Nevertheless, a trial court that has not adopted the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure but is acting as an appellate court may look to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure for guidance, as "such points of procedure are best left to the sound discretion of the trial court." Cook , 201 A.3d at 926 (quoting King , 102 A.3d at 1077 ). Under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2188, an appellee may move to dismiss an appeal where the appellant does not file a...