Groves, J. v. Wagenbach, J.
2121 EDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 20, 2025Background
- Janene Groves (Appellant) filed a complaint against Jeffrey and Kathleen Wagenbach and Francis Stoveken (Appellees) alleging they caused trees to be cut on her property and other damage, learning of the actions on December 6, 2021.
- Groves acted pro se and filed her complaint (and writs of summons) on December 5, 2023, one day before the two-year statute of limitations expired for tort actions in Pennsylvania.
- No service of the complaint was attempted within the requisite 30 days; the first action taken was over three months later, when her attorney entered an appearance and filed 10-day default notices against Appellees.
- Service of the complaint was not properly effectuated until April 9, 2024—over four months after filing—by sheriff's service and after preliminary objections had been raised.
- The trial court sustained Appellees' preliminary objections, finding improper service and lack of reasonable efforts to timely effectuate service, and dismissed the complaint as time-barred.
- Groves appealed, arguing she made good faith efforts and that her actual notice to Appellees and pro se status should excuse non-compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to timely effectuate service | She made good faith efforts; mailed complaint, and defendants had actual notice; relied on pro se advice | No proper, rule-based service within time limits; mail is not valid under rules | Plaintiff failed to make a diligent or rule-compliant service effort; claim time-barred |
| Effect of pro se status/advice by clerk | Pro se litigant, relied on clerk’s advice to serve by mail, should excuse error | All litigants must follow rules; pro se status is not an excuse | Pro se litigants not exempt from procedural requirements |
| Application of actual notice as substitute | Actual notice should suffice, as defendants received complaint by mail | Actual notice is only relevant if from a good faith but imperfect rule-based service | Actual notice is not a substitute unless it results from an attempted rule-based service |
| Trial court’s application of binding precedent | Trial court failed to apply controlling PA Supreme Court precedent properly | Trial court correctly applied precedent and rules relating to service | Trial court properly applied precedent; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) (seminal case on the requirement of good-faith efforts to effectuate service within the statute of limitations period)
- Gussom v. Teagle, 247 A.3d 1046 (Pa. 2021) (trial court may dismiss if plaintiff does not prove diligent service within statute of limitations)
- Farinacci v. Beaver City Indus. Dev. Auth., 511 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1986) (plaintiff bears burden to prove good-faith attempt at timely service)
- McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2005) (actual notice only relevant if from good-faith defective attempt at service)
- Ferraro v. Patterson-Erie Corp., 313 A.3d 987 (Pa. 2024) (service rules must be strictly followed; actual notice does not substitute for proper service)