261 A.3d 506
Pa.2021Background:
- In 2006 Decedent purchased two CDs listing herself, Betty Rellick, Kimberly Vasil, and Appellant (Rellick-Smith) as co-owners; Decedent had executed powers of attorney naming Betty and Kimberly as attorneys-in-fact.
- Appellees removed Appellant’s name from the CDs in July 2009; after Decedent’s death (2012) Appellees cashed the CDs (2013) and split about $370,000; Appellant sued for breach of fiduciary duty on October 10, 2014.
- Appellees’ initial responsive pleading did not raise affirmative defenses; in February 2015 they filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting lack of standing and statute-of-limitations defenses.
- Judge Hanna granted judgment on the pleadings for lack of standing and held the statute-of-limitations defense was waived for failure to plead it as new matter under Pa.R.C.P. 1030/1032. The Superior Court later reversed on standing and remanded.
- On remand a different judge (Bianco) granted Appellees leave (2018) to amend their answer to assert the statute-of-limitations defense, tried the case, and dismissed Appellant’s claim as time-barred; the Superior Court affirmed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed whether Bianco’s order violated the coordinate jurisdiction (law of the case) rule and reversed: Bianco improperly allowed the same defense Judge Hanna had already found waived, and no exception to the rule applied.
Issues:
| Issue | Rellick-Smith (Plaintiff) Argument | Rellick / Vasil (Defendants) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subsequent trial judge may permit amendment to plead a statute-of-limitations defense after an earlier judge held that defense waived for failure to plead new matter | Hanna’s waiver ruling was binding under the coordinate jurisdiction rule; Bianco could not undo it | Rule 1033 permits leave to amend; waiver under Rules 1030/1032 can be cured by amendment and the rulings were in different procedural postures | Court held Bianco violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule by allowing the specific amendment and vacated that portion of his order |
| Whether exceptional circumstances justified departing from the coordinate jurisdiction rule (intervening change of law/facts, clear error/manifest injustice) | No exceptional circumstances existed; Hanna’s ruling was consistent with the Rules and not clearly erroneous | Argued Hanna’s ruling was clearly incorrect and would produce manifest injustice, and liberal amendment policy supports relief | Court found no intervening change in law or facts and that Hanna’s ruling was not clearly erroneous; no exception applied |
| Whether Rule 1033’s liberal amendment power overrides an earlier waiver for failure to plead affirmative defenses under Rules 1030/1032 | Waiver under 1030/1032 bars the defense absent exceptional circumstances; amendment cannot undo a coordinate-jurisdiction bar | Rule 1033 allows amendment to add defenses that arise before or after the original pleading; waiver does not permanently preclude amendment | Court held Rule 1033 did not authorize a judge to overturn a prior judge’s binding waiver ruling in the same case absent an applicable exception |
| Whether prejudice to Plaintiff from the delay (faded memories) justified denying the amendment or affects the coordinate-jurisdiction analysis | Appellant asserted prejudice (lost/worn memories) supporting enforcement of the waiver | Defendants argued no unfair prejudice; prior motions had signaled the defense | Court did not accept prejudice as a substitute for the coordinate-jurisdiction rule; the amendment was vacated regardless of the Superior Court’s prejudice finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Riccio v. American Republic Insurance Co., 705 A.2d 422 (Pa. 1997) (coordinate jurisdiction rule does not bar a substitute judge correcting trial errors in a distinct post-trial procedural posture).
- Ryan v. Berman, 813 A.2d 792 (Pa. 2002) (departure from coordinate jurisdiction permitted where new trial evidence or different procedural posture justifies reevaluation).
- Gerrow v. John Royle & Sons, 813 A.2d 778 (Pa. 2002) (coordinate jurisdiction rule may not apply when prior ruling was clearly erroneous and would create manifest injustice and when the issues before judges were materially different).
- Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (describing the coordinate jurisdiction rule and limited exceptional circumstances permitting departure).
- Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 580 A.2d 395 (Pa. Super. 1990) (trial court should permissively allow amendment to assert statute-of-limitations defense when no prejudice exists; not a coordinate-jurisdiction case).
- Zane v. Friends Hospital, 836 A.2d 25 (Pa. 2003) (discussing law-of-the-case and coordinate jurisdiction principles in appellate-review context).
- Martin v. Wilson, 92 A.2d 193 (Pa. 1952) (failure to plead an affirmative defense renders it unavailable at trial absent timely assertion or leave to amend).