Harris, D. and D. v. Hibble and Associates, LLC
Harris, D. and D. v. Hibble and Associates, LLC No. 1040 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 3, 2017Background
- The Harrises owned real property and received a written offer from Levy and Ziccardi to buy it for $465,000, which required a $302,000 deposit to be held in escrow by the Harrises' agent.
- Levy and Ziccardi delivered a $302,000 check to their broker (Hibble & Associates/Weichert and broker Wassel), but the broker retained the check and did not present it to the Harrises or their agent.
- Levy and Ziccardi did not close on the purchase; the Harrises sued the broker and broker-employee for negligent misrepresentation regarding presentation of the deposit, and separately sued Levy and Ziccardi for breach of contract.
- The broker-defendants filed preliminary objections (demurrers and failure to join a necessary party); the trial court sustained those preliminary objections on May 25, 2016.
- The Harrises appealed the order sustaining preliminary objections, arguing the order was a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 and thus immediately appealable; the trial court and Superior Court disagreed.
- The Superior Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order was interlocutory and not a collateral order because the deposit issue was intertwined with the underlying breach claim and the Harrises did not show irreparable loss if review were deferred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order sustaining preliminary objections is immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 | The Harrises argued their negligent-misrepresentation claim against the broker is separable from, and reviewable apart from, the breach of contract action; thus the May 25 order is collateral and appealable | The broker-defendants (and trial court) argued the order is interlocutory because the deposit dispute is central to and intertwined with the underlying breach-of-contract action, so it is not a collateral order | Court held the order is interlocutory and not collateral; appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the claim involves a right too important and irreparably lost if review is postponed | Harrises contended immediate review was required (cited Pa.R.A.P. 902) but did not explain how rights would be irretrievably lost | Defendants argued any monetary or related loss could be addressed at final judgment; no irreparable harm shown | Court held Harrises failed to satisfy the third prong of collateral-order test (no demonstration of irreparable loss) |
Key Cases Cited
- Spuglio v. Cugini, 818 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of interlocutory order that does not dispose of all claims as to all parties)
- Crum v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, 907 A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 2006) (three-step collateral-order separability analysis)
- In re Reglan Litigation, 72 A.3d 696 (Pa. Super. 2013) (collateral-order requirement that the right be too important to be denied review and that postponement would cause irreparable loss)
- Jerry Davis, Inc. v. Nufab Corp., 677 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super. 1996) (monetary loss can negate irreparable-harm requirement for collateral-order review)