Fry, H. v. Adams, S.
Fry, H. v. Adams, S. No. 1654 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 11, 2017Background
- Fry sued Appellants (Susan Adams and the Estates of Gregory and Bessie Adams) and Rice Drilling alleging Fry bought land including mineral rights in 2010 and that Appellants later sold the land in 2012 while retaining half the mineral interest; Fry sought specific performance, breach of contract, and quiet title.
- Appellants filed preliminary objections; the trial court initially sustained them, dismissing counts because the Fitzgeralds were bona fide purchasers, but then entered an order denying the preliminary objections and directing Appellants to file an answer; Appellants did not file an answer.
- Several pre-trial conferences were continued; Fry filed a notice of intent to praecipe for default and later petitioned for default judgment after Appellants failed to file an answer.
- The petition for default judgment was served by first-class mail on Sept. 23, 2016 and presented to the court on Sept. 26; the court entered default judgment on Sept. 29, 2016.
- Appellants’ counsel entered an appearance and promptly filed a petition to open on Oct. 13, 2016, asserting they actually received the petition on Sept. 27 and were unable to appear; the trial court denied the petition to open on Oct. 19, 2016.
- On appeal the Superior Court did not decide the notice or merits questions; it remanded because the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion simply adopted Fry’s answer rather than providing an independent judicial analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by hearing/presenting the petition when Appellants lacked notice of the petition presentation | Fry argued petition was properly served and presented and default was warranted for failure to answer | Appellants contended they lacked timely notice of the petition presentation and could not appear | Court declined to decide notice issue on appeal; remanded because it could not review properly given trial court’s reliance on Fry’s answer without independent analysis |
| Whether the trial court’s adoption of the opposing party’s filing in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion suffices or requires an independent judicial opinion | Fry’s answer to petition was adopted by trial court as its opinion | Appellants argued trial court’s wholesale adoption deprived them of independent judicial analysis and impeded appellate review | Court held trial courts must provide an independent judicial analysis; remanded for the trial court to prepare its own opinion (following Williams, Fulton, A.V.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999) (trial court may not wholesale adopt a party’s brief; court must give an independent judicial statement of reasons)
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 876 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2002) (Williams rule applies beyond capital cases; independent judicial reasoning required)
- A.V. v. S.T., 87 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Williams/Fulton applied in family law; adoption of a party’s brief undermines appellate review)
- Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 986 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard for opening default judgments: prompt petition, reasonable excuse, and meritorious defense)