In Re: Werner, I. v. Werner, M.
In Re: Werner, I. v. Werner, M. No. 646 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- Mother (Melanie R. Werner) and father adopted two daughters and created two PUTMA custodial accounts naming Mother as custodian; Mother withdrew $252,688.90 from those UTMA accounts in 2010 and used $235,000 to buy the Centennial Avenue house titled in her name.
- During the parents’ divorce, the family court froze the children’s UTMA assets and later authorized sale of the Centennial house, allowed Mother to keep $100,000 of proceeds conditionally, and directed remaining proceeds into an interest-bearing escrow, subject to orphans’ court determination.
- Appellees (the daughters) sued Mother in orphans’ court alleging breach of her PUTMA custodial duties and seeking damages and an accounting; the orphans’ court awarded the daughters the full net proceeds of the Centennial sale ($507,000) as damages.
- The daughters entered judgment for $507,000 and sought release of the escrow balance (approx. $147,000 after prior distributions); Mother filed a timely petition to open and strike the judgment, arguing the judgment was void on its face because it did not impose personal liability or specify a sum due, and because proceeds were held in custodia legis with prior distributions.
- The orphans’ court denied Mother’s petition without reaching the merits, citing lack of jurisdiction while the award was on appeal; this Court subsequently affirmed the orphans’ court award and remanded the certified record to the orphans’ court. The Superior Court vacated the denial and remanded for the orphans’ court to decide the petition on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant (Mother) Argument | Appellees (Daughters) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an order awarding recovery from funds held in custodia legis be used to enter judgment against an individual personally? | The orphans’ court order only awarded recovery against the fund/custodial property, not personal liability; judgment against Mother personally is improper. | The orphans’ court intended personal recovery from Mother for the full proceeds because she retained $100,000 and the court awarded all net proceeds to the children. | Court remanded to decide on the merits whether the order imposed personal liability; vacated denial of petition to strike. |
| May an award against funds in custodia legis be reduced by prior court-approved distributions when entering judgment against an individual? | Judgment for the full original amount is facially defective because proceeds were in escrow and some distributions were previously approved. | The daughters contend judgment for the full net proceeds was proper given the orphans’ court’s award of the entire net sale proceeds. | Court instructed orphans’ court to determine Mother’s liability extent in light of prior $100,000 allowance and prior $260,000 distribution. |
| May an order that does not state a personal obligation or a sum certain support entry of a monetary judgment against an individual? | The orphans’ court order lacked express personal obligation and sum certain; judgment is fatally defective on its face. | The daughters argue the orphans’ court intended a monetary award against Mother and judgment entry was a procedural step to recover owed funds. | Court treated the petition as one to strike for facial defect and remanded for merits; did not resolve the substantive question. |
| Does pendency of an appeal of an in rem award against funds in custodia legis deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to strike an in personam judgment entered pursuant to that award? | Trial court should retain power to address collateral motions like petitions to strike even while appeal pending. | Trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a) once the award was on appeal. | Superior Court held that after this Court affirmed and remanded, trial court was no longer constrained by Rule 1701; vacated denial and remanded to address merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Copley Qu–Wayne Associates, 683 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1996) (distinguishes petition to strike from petition to open; petition to strike tests facial defects in the record)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 117 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standards and review for petitions to strike a judgment)
- Bell v. Kater, 943 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 2008) (petition to strike principles; matters outside the record not considered)
- Werner v. Werner, 149 A.3d 338 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prior appellate decision affirming orphans’ court award of net sale proceeds to children)