Blucas, M. v. Agiovlasitis, P.
179 A.3d 520
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Marc and Ryan Blucas leased a home from Perry Agiovlasitis from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 and paid $10,000 in security/pet deposits.
- Dispute arose over return of the deposit; Blucases sued and Agiovlasitis counterclaimed for alleged damages to the premises.
- A compulsory arbitration panel issued an award entered on the docket July 13, 2016: net award to Blucases $8,550 (arbitrators awarded Blucases $10,000 and Agiovlasitis $1,450 on his counterclaim).
- No party appealed the arbitration award within 30 days; on November 4, 2016 Agiovlasitis caused judgment to be entered on the award and on November 14, 2016 tendered payment of $8,550 to Blucases.
- On April 17, 2017 (well after the 30-day appeal window), Blucases filed a Motion for Costs and Prejudgment Interest; the trial court granted the motion on June 29, 2017 and entered judgment including prejudgment interest and costs.
- The Superior Court vacated the trial court’s order, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the unappealed compulsory arbitration award and reinstated the arbitrators’ award.
Issues
| Issue | Blucas (Plaintiff) Argument | Agiovlasitis (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest and costs after the 30-day appeal period for a compulsory arbitration award | The trial court may modify judgment to respect parties’ rights and grant prejudgment interest and costs even though motion filed after 30 days | Once a compulsory arbitration award is entered and not timely appealed, the award is final; court lacked authority to revisit substantive terms | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to modify the unappealed compulsory arbitration award and vacated the trial court’s order |
| Whether the trial court could treat the untimely motion as a permissible "molding" (correction) of the arbitration award under Pa.R.C.P. 1307(d) | Prejudgment interest and costs could be awarded by the court if not properly disposed of by arbitrators | The motion did not seek correction of a mathematical/typographical error and thus was not a permissible molding; it sought substantive relief outside the narrow 1307(d) authority | Court held the motion was not a permissible molding; awarding interest/costs was substantive and required a timely appeal for de novo review |
Key Cases Cited
- Stivers Temporary Personnel, Inc. v. Brown, 789 A.2d 292 (Pa. Super. 2001) (compulsory arbitration award, once entered and noticed, is final absent timely appeal; only narrow molding permitted)
- Connor v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 820 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (arbitrators in compulsory arbitration act like trial judge; award final unless appealed)
- Hairston v. Allen, 153 A.3d 999 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reiterating finality and appeal procedures for compulsory arbitration awards)
- F.J. Busse Co., Inc. v. Sheila Zipporah, L.P., 879 A.2d 809 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court abused discretion when it modified an arbitration award based on alleged error of law rather than a procedural irregularity)
- Thomas H. Ross, Inc. v. Seigfreid, 592 A.2d 1353 (Pa. Super. 1991) (prejudgment interest is a matter of right in some contexts — cited by trial court but distinguished by Superior Court)
- Lough v. Spring, 556 A.2d 441 (Pa. Super. 1989) (discussing limits on court molding of awards and that molding is limited to patent formal errors)