Lomas Sr., R. v. Kravitz, J., Aplts.
87 MAP 2016
| Pa. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Appellant Kravitz and related companies (Cherrydale, Andorra Springs, Eastern/Kravmar) faced an arbitration award to Lomas for unpaid contracting work; a $200,601.61 award was entered as judgment in 1998.
- Lomas sued (2000) to pierce the corporate veil and recover the award plus fees, punitive damages, and costs; Thomas C. Branca represented Lomas in arbitration and later became a Montgomery County judge.
- The case was tried as a bifurcated bench trial before Judge Thomas P. Rogers (liability first; fees/punitive damages second). Branca, now a judge, testified during the second phase (Sept. 6, 2007) that he had ongoing communications with Lomas’s counsel and a financial interest (a referral fee) in the matter.
- Appellants’ counsel questioned Branca at trial but did not move to recuse the Montgomery County bench at that time; they requested a 30-day forensic review of billing records (approved) but took no immediate recusal action.
- Appellants filed a motion to recuse the entire Montgomery County bench on October 15, 2007 (39 days after Branca’s testimony). Judge Rogers initially granted recusal but later vacated that order, denied recusal, and entered judgment for Lomas; appeals followed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Appellants waived their recusal claim by failing to seek recusal at the earliest possible moment after the facts were known (post-Branca testimony), and therefore affirmed the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lomas) | Defendant's Argument (Kravitz/Appellants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montgomery County bench should be recused for appearance of impropriety due to Judge Branca’s ongoing involvement and financial interest | Branca’s disclosures were public at trial; recusal body should be denied because Appellants untimely raised the issue and waived it | Appellants: they first learned full facts Sept. 6, 2007 (Branca’s testimony) and promptly filed recusal; issue distinct from ordinary evidentiary objections so later filing within weeks was timely | Waived: Court held Appellants knew all facts Sept. 6, 2007 and waited too long (filed Oct. 15, 2007), so recusal claim was untimely and waived |
| Whether disclosure of Branca’s referral fee and communications required recusal of entire county bench | Lomas argued disclosure alone does not mandate recusal absent timely objection; trial assurances suffice | Appellants argued appearance of impropriety required recusal or new trial on fees/punitive damages | Court did not reach merits due to waiver; disposed on timeliness threshold |
| Standard and timing for seeking judicial recusal in Pennsylvania | Lomas: established rule requires prompt objection when facts are known; late claims waived | Appellants: claimed distinction from cases where recusal was raised only after adverse verdict; argued their motion was not a tactical hedge | Held: reaffirmed settled rule—recusal must be raised at earliest possible moment when facts are or should be known; failure waives claim |
| Standard of review for denial of recusal motion | Lomas: denial reviewed for abuse of discretion | Appellants: same; argued erroneous application of waiver standards | Court: abuse-of-discretion standard applies but resolved case on waiver as threshold matter |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (recusal issues must be raised at earliest possible opportunity or are waived)
- Goodheart v. Casey, 565 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1989) (where disqualifying facts are known, failing to promptly object waives challenge)
- Reilly by Reilly v. SEPTA, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985) (pre- and post-trial recusal timeliness analyzed; unreasonable delay waives claim)
- Zappala v. Brandolini Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing denial of recusal motion)
- Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, 281 A.2d 57 (Pa. 1971) (tie on appellate court equals affirmance of lower court)