Cuneo, A. v. Financial Dimensions
1518 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- In April 2015 Cuneo parked his girlfriend’s pickup on Financial Dimensions’ private lot; police towed the vehicle after a call about abandonment. Cuneo was initially convicted under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3712 but that conviction was vacated on appeal for lack of Commonwealth witnesses.
- Cuneo filed a civil complaint in magisterial court claiming Financial Dimensions’ agent authorized parking then falsely reported abandonment; magistrate entered judgment for Financial Dimensions.
- Cuneo appealed to the Court of Common Pleas and filed a four-count complaint alleging: (1) negligence; (2) interference with business/contracts; (3) trespass upon person and movable property; and (4) conversion/recovery for time and money.
- Financial Dimensions answered, asserted counterclaims, and both parties completed discovery. Both moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court granted Financial Dimensions’ motion and dismissed Cuneo’s complaint with prejudice; Cuneo appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Cuneo failed to plead legally cognizable claims and that Financial Dimensions did not exercise possession or conversion of the vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant’s report to police supports civil liability (negligence/false report) | Cuneo: FD had no legal basis to call police; false info caused harm and expenses | FD: Reporting suspected abandonment to police is not a civilly actionable violation of the Motor Vehicle Code; no duty owed | Court: No recognized civil cause of action based on §3712 reporting; negligence claim fails for lack of duty |
| Whether FD interfered with business/contracts related to the vehicle | Cuneo: FD disrupted contracts tied to vehicle ownership/financing | FD: No knowledge of ownership/contracts or intent to harm; only sought tow from its property | Court: Complaint lacks facts showing FD knew of or intended to interfere with any contract; claim dismissed |
| Whether FD trespassed or converted the vehicle by causing its removal | Cuneo: Characterized claim as trespass/conversion; FD exercised unlawful control | FD: Vehicle was towed at police direction; FD never possessed or controlled vehicle after tow | Court: Allegations fit conversion definition but FD never possessed the vehicle; no conversion/trespass liability |
| Recovery for time/money spent litigating and related damages | Cuneo: Seeks reimbursement for expenses, time, emotional distress, and costs to overturn criminal conviction | FD: No cognizable legal theory for such recovery here | Court: No authority allowing recovery of time/expenses under conversion or Motor Vehicle Code; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Graziani v. Randolph, 856 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2004) (briefing must correspond to questions presented)
- Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2006) (pro se litigants receive liberal construction but no special benefits)
- Lundy v. Manchel, 865 A.2d 850 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court may address pro se arguments to extent they match issues presented)
- Dietz v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 41 A.3d 882 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Aikens v. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co., 501 A.2d 277 (Pa. Super. 1985) (judgment on pleadings proper if no recognized cause of action)
- Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio, 866 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2005) (duty is essential element of negligence claim)
- Walnut Street Associates, Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 982 A.2d 94 (Pa. Super. 2009) (elements for tortious interference with contractual relations)
- HRANEC Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Metalico Pittsburgh, Inc., 107 A.3d 114 (Pa. Super. 2014) (definition of conversion)
- Lynch v. Bridges & Co. Inc., 678 A.2d 414 (Pa. Super. 1996) (measure of damages for conversion is market value of property)
- Warmkessel v. Heffner, 17 A.3d 408 (Pa. Super. 2011) (mootness when requested relief cannot be granted)