Schlisman, S. v. Urban Space Develop.
Schlisman, S. v. Urban Space Develop. No. 440 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 13, 2017Background
- Urban Space Development (Appellant) obtained an arbitration award against Susan Schlisman for $124,556.01 (includes principal, interest, and attorney’s fees) in September 2013.
- Schlisman filed to vacate; trial court denied and Appellant entered judgment in January 2014.
- Schlisman appealed and posted 120% of the judgment ($149,467.21) as supersedeas/security with the prothonotary.
- This Court affirmed the denial of her petition to vacate; record remitted to trial court in Sept. 2015.
- Appellant moved to release escrow funds, seeking the docketed judgment ($124,556.01) plus additional post-award interest, fees, and costs; trial court released only the docketed judgment and returned the excess to Schlisman.
- Appellant appealed the denial of post-judgment interest and additional attorneys’ fees and challenged the trial court’s denial of reconsideration as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Urban Space) | Defendant's Argument (Schlisman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to release post-judgment interest from the supersedeas escrow | Entitled to interest running from the arbitrator’s award and statutory interest; requested release of those funds | Trial court released only amounts entered on docket and denied excess release absent formal molding/reassessing of judgment | Court reversed: post-judgment interest accrues from arbitrator’s award and should be released from the escrow; trial court erred in denying it |
| Whether trial court erred by denying additional attorneys’ fees beyond those in the arbitration award | Entitled to further attorneys’ fees (public policy and law of the case) | No authority or record support for additional fees; trial court denied release | Claim waived for appellate review due to inadequate briefing; merits not reached (and would likely fail absent statutory/agreement basis) |
| Whether denial of motion for reconsideration as untimely was erroneous | Motion filed 17 days after order; argued timely | Trial court treated motion as untimely and denied; and denial of reconsideration not reviewable on appeal | Court declined to review denial of reconsideration (not appealable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Parkinson v. Lowe, 760 A.2d 65 (Pa. Super. 2000) (purpose of supersedeas bond is to maintain status quo and protect appellee during appeal)
- Burrell Const. & Supply Co. v. Straub, 656 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 1995) (appeal bond form should make appellant liable for costs, interest, and delay damages)
- Perel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 839 A.2d 426 (Pa. Super. 2003) (post-judgment interest on arbitration award runs from date of the award)
- Pittsburgh Constr. Co. v. Griffith, 834 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2003) (post-judgment interest is a matter of right where damages are ascertainable; statutory rate applies)
- Printed Terry Finishing Co. v. City of Lebanon, 399 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 1979) (unsuccessful appeal does not suspend accrual of interest)
- Scott v. Erie Ins. Grp., 706 A.2d 357 (Pa. Super. 1998) (awarding judgment interest from arbitrators’ award date despite appeal)
- Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus, 976 A.2d 474 (Pa. 2009) (general rule: attorney’s fees not recoverable from adverse party absent statute, contract, or established exception)
- Cheathem v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 743 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. 1999) (denial of motion for reconsideration of a final decree is not reviewable on appeal)
Outcome: Affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded for determination and release of the appropriate post-judgment interest amount from the escrow.