Szymanski v. Dotey
52 A.3d 289
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Szymanski, pro se, challenged a trial judgment after missing a scheduled trial, resulting in judgment for Dotey and Jenkins.
- A hedgerow dispute led to a magisterial court judgment of $8,168 for Appellant before appellate review.
- Appeal to Chester County Common Pleas; arbitration favored Appellees; trial scheduled for June 14, 2010, then withdrawn due to counsel’s withdrawal for nonpayment.
- Two-week term noted January 3, 2011; December 14, 2010 notice allegedly scheduled January 10, 2011, 9:30 a.m.; mailed to Appellant’s home, which he acknowledged receiving the trial list for January 3 term.
- Appellant did not appear January 10, 2011; Civil Court Administrator testified she authored the December 14 notice; no evidence of mailing or placement in the regular mail process was presented.
- Trial court denied post-trial relief, applying the mailbox rule; on appeal, the court found lack of competent evidence of mailing and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mailbox rule applies given lack of proof of mailing | Szymanski; the notice was not mailed, so mailbox rule not triggered | Appellees; Drangel’s testimony established mailing, triggering presumption | Mailbox rule not supported; presumption of receipt not established; judgment vacated |
| Whether the evidence supports a finding that notice was mailed in ordinary course | Szymanski; no testimony of mailing or ordinary mailing procedures | Appellees; testimony sufficient to establish mailing under Br ay man/Grasse | Evidence insufficient to prove mailing; mailbox presumption cannot apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp. v. Brayman Constr. Corp., 99 Pa.Cmwlth. 373 (1986) (presumption depends on proper evidence of mailing)
- Christie v. Open Pantry Food Marts Inc. of Delaware Valley, 237 Pa. Super. 243 (1975) (testimony of mailing must show usual place of mailing or regular mailing process)
- Geise v. Nationwide Life & Annuity Co. of America, 939 A.2d 409 (Pa. Super. 2007) (presumption cannot be based on a presumption of mailing; need evidence of actual mailing or proper evidence of mailing procedure)
- Grasse v. Commonwealth Dep’t of Transp., 606 A.2d 544 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (documentary evidence of mailing can establish presumption of receipt)
- Meierdierck v. Miller, 394 Pa. 484 (Pa. 1959) (mailing as acceptance complete by posting; evidence of mailing can create receipt presumption)
- Shafer v. A. I. T. S., Inc., 428 A.2d 152 (Pa. Super. 1981) (evidence that letter was mailed can establish receipt presumption)
- Thomas, Commonwealth v., 814 A.2d 754 (Pa. Super. 2002) (insufficient mailing evidence for mailbox rule in summary appeal)
- Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co., 828 A.2d 1131 (Pa. Super. 2003) (distinguishes arbitration notices from trial notices; requires mailing evidence)