City of Philadelphia v. Lerner, N., Aplt.
26 EAP 2015
| Pa. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Nathan Lerner appealed a Commonwealth Court decision affirming a trial-court order in a tax-collection proceeding brought by the City of Philadelphia Department of Revenue.
- The dissent (Wecht, J., joined by Todd and Donohue JJ.) addresses waiver doctrine and extraordinary circumstances justifying relief despite preservation concerns.
- Testimony in the record described a Department practice of issuing arbitrary, fabricated "jeopardy assessments" to coerce payment, with a manager admitting supervisors sometimes "make numbers up."
- The dissent regards these practices as effectively creating sham judgments obtained by fraud, warranting judicial intervention even if waiver rules might otherwise bar consideration.
- The opinion surveys Pennsylvania and federal waiver/plain-error doctrines, contrasting strict Pennsylvania enforcement with more discretionary federal approaches and noting prior rule amendments (Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate waiver should bar review of challenges to tax assessments | Lerner argued the Court should reach the merits given the extraordinary fraud-like circumstances | City argued issues were waived for failure to preserve and appellate review should be barred | Dissent would excuse waiver because the record shows arbitrary, sham "jeopardy" assessments amounting to fraud on the court |
| Whether courts may disregard waiver to prevent enforcement of a fraudulent/sham judgment | Lerner urged court to exercise inherent power to refuse enforcement when judgment was procured by deception | City maintained normal waiver rules and finality of tax assessments | Dissent: courts retain latitude to set aside judgments obtained by suppression of truth or artifice and should do so here |
| Whether Pennsylvania’s abandonment of plain-error and relaxed-waiver doctrines forecloses equitable exceptions | Lerner relied on historic equitable powers and earlier precedents recognizing fraud exceptions | City relied on modern strict waiver doctrine and rule-based enforcement | Dissent: even with strict rules, exceptional circumstances (e.g., sham assessments) justify disregarding waiver to prevent injustice |
| Admissibility of inquiry into Department practices during collection proceedings | Lerner sought to probe Department’s assessment practices as relevant to fraud claim | City opposed expanding inquiry in collection context | Dissent认为 record warranted scrutiny; practice described justified concern though notes record limitations for appellate posture |
Key Cases Cited
- Huber v. Taylor, 469 F.3d 67 (3d Cir. 2006) (discusses prudential origins of waiver and appellate discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (treats failure to file statement of matters complained of as waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (discusses waiver from procedural defaults)
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 322 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1974) (abolished plain error doctrine in civil cases)
- Commonwealth v. Clair, 326 A.2d 272 (Pa. 1974) (abolished plain error doctrine in criminal cases)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 827 A.2d 385 (Pa. 2003) (curtailed relaxed waiver in capital appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (abolished relaxed waiver in capital post-conviction matters)
- Cochran v. Eldridge, 49 Pa. 365 (Pa. 1865) (courts will not allow judgments obtained by suppression of truth or fraud to stand)
- Sherman v. Yiddisher Kultur Farband, 99 A.2d 868 (Pa. 1953) (discusses courts’ inherent power to control, amend, open, or vacate decisions vitiated by fraud)