Hunter, M. v. Key, K.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 26, 2025
• Docket: 1517 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A19033-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

MARK HUNTER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : KEITH B. KEY AND ADDISON : No. 1517 WDA 2024 TERRACE PHASE 4 L.P., : (COLLECTIVELY KBK) :

Appeal from the Order Entered November 2, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD-23-8975

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: August 26, 2025

Mark Hunter appeals pro se from the November 2, 2024 order that

dismissed his claims against Keith B. Key and Addison Terrace Phase 4 L.P.

(collectively “KBK”).1 We dismiss this appeal.

We glean the following background information from the certified

record. Hunter owns property adjacent to real estate that KBK was developing

in 2019. KBK, represented by the firm Clark Hill, PLC (“Clark Hill”), sued

Hunter, alleging that he was interfering with the development. At a hearing

scheduled regarding a preliminary injunction, the parties settled the matter,

and KBK subsequently obtained a court order enforcing the settlement

____________________________________________

1 The trial court’s order is dated November 1, 2024, but was not filed until

November 2, 2024. We have amended the caption accordingly. J-A19033-25

agreement. This Court quashed Hunter’s appeal from that order on procedural

grounds.2

In July 2023, Hunter pro se initiated the instant action against KBK and

Clark Hill, alleging that KBK breached the prior settlement agreement by

failing to sign the written release. He also alleged that KBK and/or Clark Hill

engaged in a fraudulent scheme with city officials to prevent Hunter from

obtaining the deed to his property. Hunter sought his original asking price for

the property, namely $125,000, plus punitive damages.

KBK filed neither preliminary objections nor an answer to Hunter’s

complaint. Clark Hill filed preliminary objections, which were sustained by the

Honorable Alan D. Hertzberg, who entered an order dismissing the complaint

with prejudice against Clark Hill only. Hunter thereafter sought to amend his

complaint against KBK. KBK opposed the motion to amend by: (1) noting

that they had not received service of the original complaint, (2) contending

that the contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and (3)

pointing out deficiencies in the other claims that would be futile to correct

through amendment due to the running of the statute of limitations. The trial

2 The trial court’s statements that Hunter “wriggled free” from the settlement

agreement because the enforcement order “was ultimately vacated” are incorrect. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/24/25, at 3-4. While the judge who entered the enforcement order suggested in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that the order should be vacated, our quashal of the appeal left it undisturbed.

-2- J-A19033-25

court denied the motion to amend, inter alia, on the basis that the claims

Hunter wished to raise were time-barred.3 See Order, 11/2/24.

Hunter timely filed the instant appeal from the order denying him leave

to amend. The trial court did not order Hunter to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement and none was filed. The court authored a Rule 1925(a) opinion

reasserting the bases for its ruling outlined in its order.

In this Court, Hunter filed a woefully deficient brief. In particular, his

brief fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (statement of jurisdiction);

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) (statement of the scope and standard of review); and

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) statement of questions involved). Further, Hunter’s

brief focused upon the merits of his claims against KBK and the statute of

limitations; it does not develop any argument that is supported by citations to

pertinent legal authority as is required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) and (b), instead

offering citations to three inapplicable decisions of New York courts.

Hunter’s failure to abide by the rules has interfered with our ability to

conduct meaningful review and thus presents us with grounds to dismiss the

appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced

record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may

3 The trial court also indicated, incorrectly, that the claims against KBK had

been dismissed by the order sustaining only Clark Hill’s preliminary objections, and that Hunter could have appealed Judge Hertzberg’s order. See, e.g., Spuglio v. Cugini, 818 A.2d 1286, 1287 (Pa.Super. 2003) (“[O]rders granting preliminary objections and disposing of only some but not all of the underlying parties or claims are interlocutory and unappealable.”).

-3- J-A19033-25

be . . . dismissed.”); Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa.Super. 2000)

(“When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when briefs are

wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not

consider the merits thereof.” (cleaned up)).

Notwithstanding the shortcomings of Hunter’s brief, we afforded him the

opportunity to clarify his claims at oral argument, which was held on August 6,

2025. When the case was called, counsel for KBK appeared but Hunter did

not. Nor did he advise the Court of any emergency that prohibited his

participation. Hunter’s failure to attend argument serves as a second,

independent basis for us to dismiss this matter without addressing its merits.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2314 (“If appellant or the moving party is not ready to proceed

when a case is called for oral argument, the matter may be dismissed as of

course.”).

For the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

8/26/2025

-4-