Carmen, D. v. Carmen, G.
1236 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Gary and Dana Carmen married in 1985; VECA (a business trust formed from a 1979 corporation) issued ~4,000 shares; Fred and Ida Carmen originally owned 2,100 shares.
- Ida allegedly transferred her 2,100 VECA shares to Gary and Dana in December 2006; Gary and Dana later acted as if they owned ~2,000+ shares.
- Gary and Dana divorced; their July 6, 2011 MSA (incorporated into the divorce decree) provided that the parties believed they owned 2,100 VECA shares and required steps to divide the shares equally (1,050 each).
- In September 2014 a VECA shareholder meeting occurred (Dana not notified): Ida purportedly transferred 2,000 shares to Gary and 100 to the Wingroves; Gary purported to transfer 2,000 shares to himself and his new wife Joan as tenants by the entireties.
- Dana filed a petition (Oct. 2014) seeking specific performance of the MSA’s share-division provision; after a multi-day hearing the trial court ordered Gary to surrender one-half his interest to Dana and awarded fees.
- On appeal the Superior Court held the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because an indispensable party (Joan) was not joined; the Superior Court vacated the order and dismissed Dana’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dana) | Defendant's Argument (Gary) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for failing to join indispensable parties | Dana did not need to join Joan; joinder not required because claim concerned title as of 2011 and court cannot modify MSA property provisions under §3105(c) | Gary argued missing indispensable parties (Ida and Joan) deprived court of jurisdiction | Court: Ida not indispensable (relinquished shares); Joan is indispensable (claim affects her entireties title). Jurisdiction lacking; order vacated and petition dismissed |
| Whether Ida was an indispensable party | Dana implicitly treats Ida as irrelevant because she no longer owned shares | Gary contended Ida’s status created title uncertainty | Held: Ida is not indispensable because she no longer holds an ownership interest; her interest in preventing Dana’s acquisition is not a constitutionally protected property interest |
| Whether Joan was an indispensable party | Dana argued Joan need not be joined; joinder barred by Divorce Code limits on modifying MSA and collateral-attack rules | Gary argued Joan’s entireties claim to 2,000 shares means she must be joined to protect due process | Held: Joan is indispensable because the petition directly affects her claimed title as tenant by entireties; failure to join denied her due process |
| Whether §3105(c) or §3331 of Divorce Code precluded joinder or relief | Dana argued §3105(c) forbids modifying MSA property dispositions and §3331 bars collateral attacks on divorce decree | Gary argued the action was not modification of existing rights because ownership in 2006 was disputed and thus MSA did not dispose of existing property | Held: §3105(c) and §3331 do not excuse Dana from joinder; if Gary lacked ownership in 2011 the court would not be modifying existing property rights, and §3331 cannot deprive an absent third party (Joan) of due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Orman v. Mortgage I.T., 118 A.3d 403 (Pa. Super. 2015) (defines indispensable party concept and due-process interest test)
- Martin v. Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc., 80 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2013) (four-step analysis for indispensability)
- N. Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty Co., 130 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure to join indispensable party implicates subject-matter jurisdiction and is non-waivable)
- Miller v. Benjamin Coal Co., 625 A.2d 66 (Pa. Super. 1993) (both spouses are indispensable in actions affecting title to tenancy by entireties property)
- Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 590 A.2d 4 (Pa. 1991) (indispensability required where third parties who gifted property but were not joined had interests affecting equitable-distribution proceedings)
- Altoona Regional Health Sys. v. Schutt, 100 A.3d 260 (Pa. Super. 2014) (procedure on dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 2227 cited for dismissal/remand authority)
- Fulton v. Bedford Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 942 A.2d 240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (supporting authority that a successful purchaser/owner is an indispensable party to actions affecting title)