Boback, C. v. Ross, J.
Boback, C. v. Ross, J. No. 240 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- Christopher M. Boback (attorney/judgment creditor) sued his former client Jennifer O. Ross for unpaid fees and obtained a $7,483.80 verdict, reduced to judgment; he sought execution against assets, naming PNC and David A. Ross (Husband/Garnishee).
- Husband answered garnishment interrogatories admitting he owed alimony/child support to Wife, and Boback filed a praecipe seeking judgment by admission against Husband based on that answer.
- Trial court entered an $8,000 garnishment judgment against Husband and ordered Pa. SCDU payments to be redirected to Boback; Husband moved for reconsideration and appealed.
- Superior Court reversed on appeal, holding judgment by admission was improper as support obligations are protected from attachment and the $8,000 figure lacked evidentiary support; Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal and the case was remanded.
- After remand Husband moved for attorney’s fees under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(3) as a prevailing garnishee; the trial court awarded $13,731.31. Boback appealed, claiming lack of jurisdiction/res judicata and challenging award of appellate-related fees.
- Superior Court affirmed the fee award, held Husband’s fee claim ripened only after he prevailed, rejected res judicata/jurisdiction objections, and remanded to calculate additional fees under Pa.R.A.P. 2744 (frivolous appeal sanctions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boback) | Defendant's Argument (Ross/Garnishee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court erred in awarding §2503 fees because Garnishee did not appeal denial of an earlier fee request / res judicata bars later fee motion | Boback: Res judicata and appellate posture barred subsequent fee motion; Garnishee should have appealed earlier denial | Garnishee: No prior fee order existed for appeal; entitlement only arose after he prevailed on appeal, so timely motion after remand was proper | Court: Rejected res judicata; entitlement to §2503(3) fees arose when Garnishee prevailed on appeal, so trial court had authority to award fees |
| 2. Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction on remand to award fees because Superior Court did not instruct further proceedings | Boback: Remand did not authorize further proceedings or new orders; trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction | Garnishee: Remand returned jurisdiction and Garnishee filed fee motion within the post-remand period; court may act | Court: Jurisdiction existed after remand; Garnishee filed motion within applicable time and court could award fees |
| 3. Whether appellate fees/costs were improperly awarded because Garnishee did not request them under appellate rules | Boback: Appellate fees require requests under Pa.R.A.P. 2744/2751 and Superior Court did not order them on remand | Garnishee: Fees related to garnishment defense, including appeals, are compensable under §2503(3) | Court: Upheld award of fees including appellate-related work; affirmed trial court but remanded to calculate additional sanctions under Pa.R.A.P. 2744 |
| 4. (Family-court fees) Whether fees for related domestic-relations proceedings were improperly included | Boback: Fees from family-divison proceedings lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and were outside garnishment scope | Garnishee: Fees were incurred defending garnishment and related proceedings necessary to resolve garnishment | Held: Court declined to address this claim further; trial court limited its award to fees "related only to the garnishment proceeding" |
Key Cases Cited
- Boback v. Ross, 114 A.3d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reversed judgment by admission against garnishee; support payments not subject to attachment and $8,000 award lacked evidentiary support)
- Miller Elec. Co. v. DeWeese, 907 A.2d 1051 (Pa. 2006) (garnishee’s entitlement to fees under §2503 depends on final determination that garnishee has no indebtedness due)
- Uveges v. Uveges, 103 A.3d 825 (Pa. Super. 2014) (historical treatment: support obligations protected from attachment/anti-attachment clause principles)
- Mazur v. Trinity Area School Dist., 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008) (standard: questions of law reviewed de novo)