Bollard & Associates, Inc. v. H & R Industries, Inc.
161 A.3d 254
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Bollard & Associates obtained a judgment against H&R Industries and Harry Schmidt for $405,984.07 plus interest and served garnishment interrogatories on Wells Fargo, which held funds in a joint account of Harry Schmidt (Appellee) and his son Gary (Mr. Schmidt).
- Mr. Schmidt had sold a jointly titled Philadelphia home in May 2015, producing net proceeds of $385,073.36 that he deposited into the joint Wells Fargo account.
- Over ~10 months Mr. Schmidt withdrew about $196,537.15; a remaining $188,536.31 balance derived from the sale remained in the account and was garnished.
- Mr. Schmidt claimed the funds as exempt, asserting he alone owned the property and that joint titling was for estate-planning purposes; he and Appellee also previously agreed to small statutory and Social Security exceptions.
- Trial court found Mr. Schmidt credible and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that the $188,536.31 was his sole property and exempt from garnishment; Bollard moved for reconsideration (introducing 1099 evidence) which was denied.
- Superior Court vacated the exemption, holding the trial court abused its discretion because undisputed evidence showed the sale proceeds were split and the record lacked clear and convincing proof of sole ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Bollard’s motion for reconsideration | Reconsideration should consider 1099 and written acknowledgments showing proceeds were split 50/50 | Trial court properly denied reconsideration; new evidence on reconsideration not reviewable | Denial of reconsideration is not reviewable on appeal; no relief on this procedural point |
| Whether the trial court’s exemption finding (that $188,536.31 belonged solely to Gary) was against weight and sufficiency of evidence | 1099s and undisputed facts show proceeds were shared equally; trial court lacked clear and convincing proof of sole ownership | Mr. Schmidt credible: testified he purchased the house alone and joint title was for estate planning; he paid expenses | Trial court abused its discretion; the evidence showed proceeds were shared and petitioner failed to prove sole ownership by clear and convincing evidence; exemption vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Huntington Nat. Bank v. K–Cor, Inc., 107 A.3d 783 (Pa. Super. 2014) (denial of reconsideration not reviewable on appeal)
- Rabatin v. Allied Glove Corp., 24 A.3d 388 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues not raised at trial are not preserved for appeal)
- Kelly v. Siuma, 34 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may refuse to consider new evidence first presented in a motion for reconsideration)
- Deutsch, Larrimore & Farnish, P.C. v. Johnson, 848 A.2d 137 (Pa. 2004) (presumption that deposits into joint accounts are not gifts; ownership follows contributions absent clear and convincing evidence of different intent)
- Lessner v. Rubinson, 592 A.2d 678 (Pa. 1991) (definition and standard for clear and convincing evidence)
- Thatcher's Drug Store of W. Goshen, Inc. v. Consol. Supermarkets, Inc., 636 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1994) (appellate deference to trial court factfinding and credibility determinations)