Grable, J. v. Phillips, C.
1863 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 28, 2016Background
- Grable filed a writ of summons on April 13, 2012 (within the two-year limitations period for an April 14, 2010 tort), and the Washington County Sheriff served Craig Phillips personally. The sheriff’s return stated the served address (340 Varner Lane) was Scott Phillips’ residence.
- Grable later mailed the complaint to Scott at 1102 Overlook Drive (certified mail returned unclaimed; first-class mail not returned) and obtained default judgment against Scott as to liability; damages were litigated and an award entered against Scott.
- Scott moved to strike the default judgment, asserting he never lived at 340 Varner Lane and was not properly served; the trial court struck the default judgment.
- After unsuccessful sheriff attempts, the court permitted alternative service; Grable mailed process to Scott at 385 Taylor Avenue (certified returned unclaimed; first-class not returned). Scott then filed an answer admitting his current address was 385 Taylor Avenue and raised the statute of limitations defense.
- The trial court granted Scott summary judgment, holding Grable did not supply Scott with actual notice within the limitations period. The Superior Court vacated and remanded, finding the trial court abused discretion by deciding actual notice sua sponte despite the parties’ positions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing the writ tolled the statute of limitations when service was defective | Grable: timely filing (April 13, 2012) tolled limitations; he made good-faith efforts to notify Scott and effected alternative service later | Scott: actual service was not completed within a reasonable time; statute of limitations bars the claim | Superior Court: filing timely satisfied statutory start; trial court abused discretion by finding lack of actual notice sua sponte because parties conceded actual notice; remand to decide good-faith effort issue |
| Whether plaintiff’s post-filing efforts met the Lamp/McCreesh good-faith standard to preserve the writ | Grable: demonstrated good-faith attempts (sheriff use, mailing, alternative service) to notify Scott | Scott: delays and failures to serve show lack of timely notice; limitations period expired | Superior Court: issue not decided — remanded to trial court to determine good-faith under governing precedent |
| Whether the trial court could grant summary judgment on an issue not argued by defendant | Grable: trial court should not raise and decide an issue sua sponte that neither party contested | Scott: argued statute of limitations but did not contest actual notice | Superior Court: trial court erred in raising and deciding actual-notice sua sponte, especially when defendant’s filings conceded actual notice |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the record presented | Grable: disputed factual issues remain re: service and good faith, precluding summary judgment | Scott: contended no proper service and time-barred claim | Superior Court: vacated summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings focused on good-faith effort to effectuate service |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) (writ of summons can toll limitations if plaintiff does not stall the process)
- Farinacci v. Blair County Ind. Dev. Auth., 511 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1986) (plaintiff must make good-faith effort to effectuate notice)
- Leidich v. Franklin, 575 A.2d 914 (Pa. Super. 1990) (cases applying Lamp that decline relief where plaintiff intended to stall or prejudiced defendant)
- McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2005) (clarifies Lamp; actual notice and good-faith effort standards; trial court has discretion to assess good faith)
- Yount v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 966 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (trial courts should not raise and decide issues sua sponte at summary judgment without giving parties opportunity to be heard)