Discover Bank v. Robertson, A.
Discover Bank v. Robertson, A. No. 3600 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 9, 2017Background
- Discover Bank sued for unpaid credit-card debt and filed a complaint naming “Angelique Roberston” (typographical transposition of the surname) at Robertson’s address.
- Sheriff personally served the complaint; Robertson filed an answer and affirmative defenses, asserting she was not the person named because of the misspelling.
- Discover Bank’s later filings (including a Reply and Praecipe for Arbitration) corrected the name to “Angelique Robertson.” Arbitration proceeded in April 2015 in Discover Bank’s favor; judgment on the award was entered.
- Robertson filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award (denied December 22, 2015), and twice appealed pro se to the Superior Court; the court found briefing disorganized and ultimately quashed the second appeal.
- The Superior Court held the core legal issue was jurisdictional: the dispute arose from compulsory arbitration, so review should have been by a trial de novo in the court of common pleas under Section 7361, rendering the Superior Court without jurisdiction to decide the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendant was properly named/attached despite typographical error | Robertson: misspelling (Roberston) means she was not the named defendant | Discover Bank: misspelling was typographical; subsequent filings corrected name and show same address; no prejudice | Court: allowed correction under Pa.R.C.P. 1033; Robertson was properly attached |
| Whether arbitration procedures/flow-of-information violated federal or PA arbitration law (and whether that supports vacatur) | Robertson: arbitration panel failed to follow required procedures; raised FAA claims | Discover Bank: arbitration conducted under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1301 et seq.; remedy is appeal for trial de novo, not vacatur | Court: substantive challenge belongs in court of common pleas via trial de novo; Superior Court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether Robertson’s failure to file a supporting brief for her petition to vacate was non-prejudicial | Robertson: not prejudicial; merits should be considered despite procedural defaults | Discover Bank / Court: lack of briefing prejudiced presentation of issues at argument | Court: noted pro se liberality but treated procedural defaults as relevant; did not grant relief based on lack of briefing |
| Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction and whether the appeal was timely | Robertson: appealed December 22, 2015 order to Superior Court | Discover Bank: relief should have been sought by trial de novo in common pleas; appeal to Superior Court is from tribunal, not court; untimely if transferred | Court: appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction because the award is an arbitrators’ tribunal matter under 42 Pa.C.S. §7361 and Lyons; even if transferred, appeal would be untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Discover Bank v. Stucka, 33 A.3d 82 (Pa. Super. 2011) (liberal amendment policy and correction of party name under Pa.R.C.P. 1033)
- Lyons v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 475 A.2d 151 (Pa. Super. 1984) (award of arbitrators under Section 7361 is an order of a tribunal; appeal lies to common pleas for trial de novo)
- Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 580 A.2d 395 (Pa. Super. 1990) (amendments liberally allowed to decide cases on the merits absent undue prejudice)
- Smock v. Commonwealth, 436 A.2d 615 (Pa. 1981) (court may refuse transfer of an appeal in the interest of judicial economy when transferee could not grant relief)
- Lewis v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 421 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 1980) (timing limits for appealing arbitration awards to the court of common pleas)