Finder, C. v. Crawford, T.
167 A.3d 40
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Finder and the Crawfords were neighbors who had repeated disputes; Crawfords filed multiple police complaints and ultimately a private criminal complaint for summary harassment against Finder.
- The Montgomery County DA approved the private complaint and the case proceeded before Magisterial District Judge Zucker; during the hearing Judge Zucker urged settlement and the trial was continued.
- The parties dispute whether a conditional compromise/adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was reached; Finder denied any conditional compromise and had limited recollection of the judge’s statements.
- Shortly before the rescheduled trial the Crawfords asked the judge to cancel the trial; Judge Zucker dismissed the private criminal complaint. No judgment of acquittal was entered.
- Finder sued the Crawfords for malicious prosecution; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Crawfords because Finder produced no admissible evidence beyond his pleadings to oppose the motion. The Crawfords’ request for attorney’s fees was denied. Both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Finder) | Defendant's Argument (Crawfords) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was properly granted on malicious prosecution claim | Finder argued his “certification” and denials created factual disputes (no compromise reached) | Crawfords argued they showed an adjournment/conditional dismissal and Finder produced no admissible evidence to create a genuine issue | Affirmed: summary judgment proper because Finder failed to present admissible evidence (his certification was not a compliant affidavit and pleadings alone insufficient) |
| Whether Finder’s electronic “certification” qualified as an affidavit under Pa.R.C.P. 76 | Certification should be treated as an affidavit under electronic filing rules | Certification was defective (trial court initially found unsigned and wrong penal statute cited) | The court held electronic filing signature form satisfied Rule 205.4 but the certification failed Rule 76 because it cited the wrong criminal statute and thus was not an affidavit for summary judgment purposes |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying Crawfords’ request for attorney’s fees | Finder argued his suit had basis in law and fact; proceedings not in bad faith | Crawfords argued Finder’s suit was vexatious/bad faith and warranted fees | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion — trial court reasonably concluded Finder’s claim was not wholly without basis and sanctions were unwarranted |
| Whether this appeal is frivolous such that appellate fees should be awarded | Finder maintained appeal raised a legitimate issue about the affidavit/electronic filing | Crawfords sought fees for frivolous appeal | Denied: appeal not frivolous; issue raised was legitimate though unsuccessful |
Key Cases Cited
- E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin, 68 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard and review for summary judgment)
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Gibson, 102 A.3d 462 (Pa. Super. 2014) (nonmoving party cannot rely on pleadings alone to survive summary judgment)
- Young v. Commonwealth Dep’t of Transportation, 744 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 2000) (failure to adduce sufficient evidence entitles moving party to judgment)
- Welsh v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 154 A.3d 386 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court did not err refusing noncompliant affidavits)
- Dean v. Dean, 98 A.3d 637 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions/attorney’s fees)
- Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996) (attorney’s fees as sanction require dilatory, obdurate, vexatious conduct or bad faith)
- Santilo v. Robinson, 557 A.2d 416 (Pa. Super. 1989) (granting summary judgment does not automatically make a pleading vexatious)