Agostinelli, L. v. Edwards, J.
98 A.3d 695
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- In 2000 Linda Agostinelli, Dr. James Edwards, and Jon Edwards formed LETWO Ventures, LLC; ownership: Linda 50%, James 25%, Jon 25%.
- Edwardses sued the Agostinellis in 2006 alleging missing LETWO funds; consolidated suits proceeded to non-jury trial in 2009–2010.
- Trial court found conversion of LETWO funds by the Agostinellis, credited Linda with a 50% share of LETWO ($240,346.74), and calculated various capital-account adjustments and damages; later modified those calculations.
- This Court’s 2012 memorandum reversed in part (finding fraud by Edward Agostinelli only, awarding 6% simple interest on conversions) and remanded for recalculation of damages and interest; it upheld the trial court’s prior credit to Linda.
- On remand the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, made new findings, then (incorrectly, per this Court) divested Linda of her 50% LETWO credit and increased the damages award; Linda appealed.
- Superior Court held Rule 227.1 (post-trial motions) did not require new post-trial motions after the remand proceedings here and reversed in part: it reinstated Linda’s 50% credit and reduced LETWO’s recoverable damages to $37,890.41.
Issues
| Issue | Agostinelli's Argument | Edwardses' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Linda should be charged with her husband’s fraud | Trial court wrongly attributed fraud to Linda; she did not commit the fraud | Edwardses argued Linda benefited and could be charged or denied credit | Court: trial court did not attribute husband’s fraud to Linda; Linda waived challenge to finding she personally benefited; no relief on attribution issue |
| Whether Linda should retain credit for her 50% LETWO interest after remand | Linda argued remand did not authorize divesting her of the credited 50% interest | Edwardses did not challenge original 50% credit on first appeal and argued remand permitted recalculation | Court: trial court erred by divesting Linda of her 50% interest on remand; Linda is credited $240,346.74 |
| Whether post-trial motions (Pa.R.C.P. 227.1) were required after the remand proceedings | Linda: Newman means post-trial motions not required where remand falls short of a full trial | Edwardses: Rule 227.1 required post-trial motions after the remand order to preserve issues | Court: under Newman, where remand relies on existing record (even with some new evidence) post-trial motions are not required here; no waiver |
| Proper damages after credit and interest recalculation on remand | Linda: she should keep 50% credit; damages should reflect that credit | Edwardses: trial court’s remand recalculation (increased award) was proper | Court: after reinstating Linda’s 50% credit, net award to LETWO is $37,890.41; otherwise affirmed remand calculations as adjusted |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman Dev. Group of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi’s Family Markets, Inc., 52 A.3d 1233 (Pa. 2012) (remand proceedings that rely on the existing record and are less than a full trial do not trigger post-trial motion requirements under Rule 227.1)
- Cerniga v. Mon Valley Speed Boat Club, Inc., 862 A.2d 1272 (Pa. Super. 2004) (post-remand orders that include new factual findings/conclusions require post-trial motions to preserve issues)
- Lenhart v. Travelers Ins. Co., 596 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 1991) (orders based solely on the record and briefs are not "trials" for purposes of post-trial motion requirement)
- Spang & Co. v. USX Corp., 599 A.2d 978 (Pa. Super. 1991) (calculation of damages is a question of fact)
- Nigro v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 637 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 1993) (trial court must strictly comply with the scope of an appellate mandate)