Phillips, C. v. Stone, G.
1481 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Phillips filed a complaint alleging an oral July 2012 agreement: he would advance money to construct a building on Stone's property and Stone would reimburse him; Phillips claimed $269,676 invested, with $100,000 paid by Stone and $169,676 outstanding.
- Complaint also included separate claims for reimbursement of non-construction items and an alleged theft; Phillips abandoned those issues on appeal.
- Stone moved for summary judgment arguing Phillips failed to prove the elements of a breach of contract (no enforceable agreement to reimburse construction costs).
- Phillips relied on his and his son’s deposition testimony that Stone agreed to reimburse construction expenses and that Stone paid $100,000 after receiving invoices; Eve Phillips submitted an unsworn (non-notarized) affidavit which the trial court disregarded.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Stone on all claims; the Superior Court affirmed dismissal of non-construction claims, but vacated summary judgment as to the construction-reimbursement claim and remanded for trial, finding genuine factual disputes about the existence of an oral contract and whether the $100,000 payment acknowledged a debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper as to Phillips’ claim that Stone agreed to reimburse construction expenses | Phillips: oral agreement existed; Stone’s $100,000 payment and promise to pay the balance within a week acknowledge the debt | Stone: no contract to reimburse construction costs; $100,000 was payment for furniture/other items, not reimbursement | Vacated summary judgment on the construction-reimbursement claim — genuine issues of material fact exist and case remanded for trial |
| Whether trial court could consider Eve Phillips’ affidavit in opposing summary judgment | Phillips: affidavit corroborates Stone’s promise to pay | Stone: affidavit is unsworn/unauthorized and should be disregarded | Trial court correctly disregarded the unnotarized/unsworn affidavit |
| Whether remaining non-construction claims were preserved on appeal | Phillips: (did not contest on appeal) | Stone: trial court’s dismissal should be upheld | Affirmed dismissal of non-construction reimbursement and theft claims (Phillips abandoned these issues) |
| Whether admissions/partial payment create an acknowledgment of debt sufficient to survive summary judgment | Phillips: partial payment is clear acknowledgment of debt and supports an oral contract inference | Stone: payment alone does not establish a contract to reimburse construction costs when characterized otherwise | Court held that the $100,000 payment, combined with deposition testimony, raises a factual dispute for the factfinder rather than supporting summary judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, 156 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2017) (summary judgment standard and appellate review)
- Walton v. Johnson, 66 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2013) (elements required to form an enforceable contract)
- Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 24 A.3d 875 (Pa. Super. 2011) (breach of contract elements; contract may be oral or inferred)
- Dittman v. UPMC, 154 A.3d 318 (Pa. Super. 2017) (formation and inference of implied contracts from conduct)
- Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 1997) (payment can be an unequivocal acknowledgement of debt)