Solan, D. v. Silverman, Solan, D. v. Silverman No. 1379 EDA 2016

From 1995–2004 David Solan worked as general manager for properties owned/controlled by Herman Silverman and was paid a salary.
Solan claimed a separate oral agreement with Silverman promising a 3% commission on leases, options, or renewals that Solan independently originated.
After Solan’s employment ended in 2004, he sought commissions for leases he said he originated; appellees paid and conceded only $46,157.09.
Appellants initially sued seeking $1,140,864.67 for unpaid commissions, later reducing the demand in stages to about $333,648.54.
At bench trial appellants presented limited documentary proof (rent rolls/lease lists) and relied on representative lease examples and the claim that appellees possessed the full records.
Trial court awarded the conceded $46,157.09; appellants’ post-trial motions and appeal challenged sufficiency of evidence, prejudgment interest, and a fraudulent-transfer-based fee claim; court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for unpaid commissions under oral contract	Solan: presented representative lease examples and invited appellees to refute; appellees possessed full records so strict proof excused	Appellees: appellants lacked rent rolls/ documentary proof and thus failed to prove amounts beyond conceded sum	Trial court credited appellees; appellate court found evidence insufficient to support amounts claimed and affirmed $46,157.09 award
Entitlement to prejudgment interest	Solan: produced unrebutted recalculation of prejudgment interest during trial	Appellees: damages themselves were not proven so prejudgment interest not recoverable	Court rejected claim because primary damages were not proven beyond conceded amount; no relief granted
Claim under Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (and attorneys’ fees)	Solan: argued appellees fraudulently transferred assets, entitling fees and relief	Appellees: insufficient proof of fraudulent transfer tied to judgment	Court found fraud claim unsupported by the record and denied relief
Judicial bias / recusal	Solan: counsel asserted the trial judge was biased post-trial	Appellees: any recusal claim waived because not timely raised during trial	Court held recusal claim was not preserved and waived; bald accusations insufficient

Hart v. Arnold, 884 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for non-jury findings and deference to trial judge credibility determinations)
Tagliati v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 720 A.2d 1051 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appellate review of legal conclusions is plenary)
Rader v. Palletz, 51 A.2d 344 (Pa. Super. 1947) (plaintiff must establish contract and damages by substantial evidence; verdict cannot rest on guess or conjecture)
Christian v. Yanoviak, 945 A.2d 220 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for reviewing denial of post-trial motions and credibility-based findings)
Zeffiro v. Gillen, 788 A.2d 1009 (Pa. Super. 2001) (sufficiency review asks whether evidence viewed favorably to winner allows verdict against loser)
Goodheart v. Casey, 565 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1989) (timeliness requirement for recusal and waiver when not raised promptly)
Rizzo v. Haines, 555 A.2d 58 (Pa. 1989) (recusal must be raised early; failure to do so waives claim)
Reilly by Reilly v. SEPTA, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985) (procedural rules and substance required for recusal petitions)
Ware v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 577 A.2d 902 (Pa. Super. 1990) (recusal claim cannot be raised first in post-trial proceedings)
Angelo v. Diamontoni, 871 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for denial of new trial)