Kilson, C. v. Top Class Auto, Inc.
2695 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- Kilson sued Top Class Auto after buying a 2006 Pontiac for $6,000 and never receiving title; vehicle was later seized and sold, and Kilson sought damages including treble damages and attorney’s fees under the UTPCPL.
- Arbitration awarded in Kilson’s favor; Top Class appealed to court and the case was placed in the July 2015 trial pool with "next-day" notice protocol.
- On July 8, 2015 the court called the case for 9:30 a.m.; Kilson, his counsel and a witness appeared; Top Class’s counsel did not appear and was contacted by court staff.
- The court proceeded with a bench trial in Top Class’s absence, heard two witnesses, and entered judgment for $27,396.50 (including $15,000 treble damages and $5,000 attorney’s fees).
- Top Class filed post-trial relief with affidavits claiming it did not receive notice and that counsel arrived later to find the courtroom empty; the trial court denied relief, finding notice had been given, Pa.R.C.P. 218 authorized proceeding in absence, and Top Class lacked a meritorious defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kilson) | Defendant's Argument (Top Class) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was it an abuse of discretion to proceed to trial without defendant/counsel present? | Court may proceed under Pa.R.C.P. 218; Kilson was ready and carried burden. | Counsel lacked actual notice of the next-day trial call; proceeding without verifying notice was improper. | No abuse: Court followed Pa.R.C.P. 218, had assurance court administration gave notice, and staff attempted to contact defense. |
| 2) Should court have reopened to hear defense counsel’s explanation after trial? | No ex parte reopening required; Pa.R.C.P. 218 permits presuming absent party not ready. | Court should have heard counsel’s excuse or reopened to consider late arrival. | No abuse: court not required to reopen ex parte; absent counsel presumed not ready without satisfactory excuse. |
| 3) Was denial of post-trial relief improper given affidavits claiming no notice? | Judgment not automatic; affidavits show no notice and warrant new trial/opening judgment. | Kilson met burden at trial; Top Class failed to present meritorious defense and admitted failure to provide title. | Denial affirmed: affidavits insufficient; Top Class lacked meritorious defense to open judgment. |
| 4) Was it improper for court to question defense counsel’s credibility based on transcript vs affidavits? | Court properly assessed inconsistency between transcript (proceedings until 10:09 a.m.) and counsel’s affidavit claiming courtroom empty at 10:00 a.m. | Affidavits and receptionist testimony support counsel’s timeline. | No abuse: court reasonably found discrepancies that undermined credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reilly Assocs. v. Duryea Borough Sewer Auth., 631 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993) (standard for appellate review of trial court discretion)
- Zappala v. Brandolini Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Anderson v. Pa. Fin. Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan, 637 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (court may presume absent party not ready under Rule 218)
- Melvin v. Melvin, 580 A.2d 811 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (post-trial relief/opening judgment standards analogous to opening default)
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (elements required to open judgment)
- Com. v. 1992 Chevrolet, 844 A.2d 583 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004) (plaintiff must still meet burden of proof when defendant absent)