Key legal question
Whether the constitutional appeal met the required reasoning against the cantonal non-entry decision
Extracted holding
It did not. The appellant failed to address the cantonal reasoning and did not show a constitutional violation with the required specificity.
Extracted reasoning
The submissions only attacked the amount of the underlying debt and did not engage with the cantonal finding that no proper grievances or exceptions under Art. 81 LP had been raised. The motivation was therefore manifestly insufficient under Arts. 42(2), 106(2) and 117 LTF.