City of Philadelphia v. B. Harvey and D. Pena
2699 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- Benjamin Harvey and Dylear Pena co-owned property with delinquent 2012–2013 taxes; City of Philadelphia filed to sell the property at sheriff’s sale after no answer and a hearing.
- Trial court authorized sale on June 18, 2015; sale was scheduled for November 19, 2015, after payment terms were not met.
- On November 18, 2015, Latoya Bost (Harvey’s niece) told the court Harvey died in 2010 and that Pena (Harvey’s grandson) was a minor; the court postponed the sale and appointed Community Legal Services as guardian ad litem for Pena.
- On November 23, 2015, the trial court stayed the sheriff’s sale and ordered the City to obtain a guardian for Pena; the City moved for reconsideration and appealed on December 22, 2015.
- On December 23, 2015, the trial court vacated its June 18, 2015 decree authorizing the sheriff’s sale; the Commonwealth Court considered whether the City’s appeal of the November 23 order was moot and whether the order compelling the City to seek a guardian was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Harvey/Pena) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of stay of sheriff’s sale | Appeal is not moot because trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter vacating order after appeal, so vacatur is void | Trial court’s vacatur stands, rendering the stay moot | Stay is moot because the decree authorizing the sale was vacated; challenge to stay dismissed as moot |
| Trial court jurisdiction after appeal (Rule 1701(c)) | Trial court lost jurisdiction upon appeal filed Dec. 22, 2015; Dec. 23 order is void | Rule 1701(c) permits limited further proceedings; trial court could act on collateral matters | City’s appeal did not divest trial court of authority to act under Rule 1701(c); vacatur was valid for mootness analysis |
| Appealability of order directing City to obtain guardian (collateral order) | Order is not appealable as final or interlocutory; appeal should be dismissed | Order affects City’s due-process interests and is separable from merits, so immediate review warranted | Order to petition for guardian is a collateral order and is appealable now |
| Whether court could order City to petition for guardian ad litem | City: no credible evidence Pena was minor; City cannot be compelled to act for adverse party (conflict/liability) | Trial court: had duty to protect minor; court may appoint guardian sua sponte when minority is discovered | Trial court had grounds to stay sale and require guardian, but it abused authority in ordering the City (an adverse party) to petition; that portion reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Defender’s Office of Venango County v. Venango County Court of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2006) (mootness requires an actual controversy at all stages)
- Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 812 A.2d 591 (Pa. 2002) (mootness doctrine described)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 549 A.2d 561 (Pa. 1988) (purpose and scope of Pa. R.A.P. 1701(c))
- City of Philadelphia v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 937 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (requirements for justiciable case or controversy)
- Rehrer v. Youst, 91 A.3d 183 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appointment of guardian ad litem in civil litigation is generally not a final appealable order)
- Hamilton v. Moore, 6 A.2d 787 (Pa. 1939) (duty to hold proceedings in abeyance until guardian appointed when minor is unrepresented)