Rittenhouse Plaza, Inc. v. Lichtman

• Docket Number: 1807 EDA 2021,J-A20029-22
• Decision Date: 28 February 2023
• Parties: RITTENHOUSE PLAZA, INC. v. JOAN LICHTMAN Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

RITTENHOUSE PLAZA, INC.
v.
JOAN LICHTMAN Appellant

No. 1807 EDA 2021

No. J-A20029-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 28, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No.: 071003964

BEFORE: STABILE, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

STABILE, J.

Appellant Joan Lichtman pro se appeals from the August 4, 2021 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which denied her petition to strike judgment. Upon review, we affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. Briefly, this appeal stems from a landlord-tenant action between Appellant and Appellee Rittenhouse Plaza, Inc. ("Rittenhouse"), the operator of a housing cooperative under which individual proprietary tenants occupy apartment units under proprietary leases between the tenants and Rittenhouse. From 1992 to 2007, Appellant resided in Unit 8C of Rittenhouse Plaza, located at 1901 Walnut Street in Philadelphia (the "Property").

2

On September 26, 2007, Rittenhouse filed a landlord-tenant action against Appellant in Philadelphia Municipal Court, seeking past due rent and possession of the Property. On October 19, 2007, the court entered judgment in favor of Rittenhouse for money damages and possession. Appellant appealed de novo to the trial court, which eventually, on May 9, 2008, also found in favor of Rittenhouse in the amount of $47,081.19 and awarded Rittenhouse possession of the Property. Appellant's appeals to this Court were unsuccessful and she was evicted from the Property on June 16, 2008.^[1]

On January 28, 2010, Appellant filed an emergency motion to stay the sheriff's sale, which was denied the same day. On February 2, 2010, Appellant's cooperative interest in the Property was sold following active bidding. On April 6, 2010, the sheriff's deed was recorded. On May 28, 2010, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to set aside the sale and this Court affirmed the order on March 11, 2011.

Appellant pro se filed several petitions to strike the May 9, 2008 judgment, all of which were denied.^[2] On July 18, 2021, Appellant filed yet

3

another petition-her fifth-to strike the judgment.^[3] The trial court denied the petition on August 4, 2021. Appellant pro se timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Appellant presents seven issues for our review, reproduced verbatim below.

[I.] Did the trial judge err or abuse discretion in this Landlord-Tenant matter, when failing to get the correct set of facts; failing to inform himself of Philadelphia's law governing evictions, i.e., specifically Philadelphia Code, Chapter 9-1600, entitled Prohibition against Unlawful Eviction Practices; and failing to read Defendant's pleadings and submitted paperwork, thereby rendering his premises to be incorrect and his conclusions not supported by law nor the evidence

4

[II.] Did the trial judge err or abuse discretion, when wrongly concluding that Defendant's unopposed motion for extraordinary relief, which sought enforcement of Philadelphia Code, Ch. 9-1600, entitled Prohibition against Unlawful Eviction Practices, was, instead, an untimely petition to open a judgment, and, therefore, barred by the coordinate jurisdiction rule and doctrine of res judicata?

[III.] Did the trial court err or abuse discretion when failing to acknowledge and to give due judicial consideration to the reality that Defendant's motion was unopposed?

[IV.] Did the trial judge err or abuse discretion and/or violate the Canons of Judicial Conduct, nos. 1 and 2, when the Court acted on bias and prejudice, especially against pro se's; failed to carefully read and consider Defendants' pleadings; failed to examine supplied and/or available evidence; and/or when the judge incorrectly applied a convenient legal standard as a contrived excuse to deny Defendant's guaranteed, constitutional rights to due process and a full, fair hearing?

[V.] Did the trial judge err or abuse

...