The Hoopskirt Lofts Condominium Association v. v. Vurimindi and A. Boris
15-18 and 157-160 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Oct 10, 2017Background
- Vurimindi and ex-wife Ann Boris purchased Condominium Unit 607; Association collected monthly assessments under the Declaration and could place liens and foreclose for unpaid assessments.
- From 2009–2012 Vurimindi lodged complaints about building conditions; he and Boris stopped paying assessments in January 2012.
- Association sued in December 2013 for unpaid fees; Boris answered but Vurimindi did not; default was entered against him in February 2014 after service efforts at detention facilities.
- Bench trial was held February 23, 2015; judgment entered for the Association for $29,506.18 and the Association obtained a writ of execution; sheriff’s sale occurred November 11, 2015 (unit sold to Zimolong, LLC).
- Vurimindi (pro se) repeatedly moved to strike/open the default judgment, stay execution, postpone or set aside the sheriff’s sale, obtain supersedeas, and to appeal nunc pro tunc, raising lack-of-service, lack of prison law-library access, statutory notice and consumer- or housing-law defenses; trial court denied relief and multiple interlocutory appeals and post-sale appeals were consolidated in this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Vurimindi's Argument | Association's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction/service and validity of default judgment | He was not properly served while incarcerated and lacked access to the law library, so default/judgment should be struck/opened | Process and service were proper (service at detention centers); default was valid | Trial court opinion affirmed; default judgment and subsequent denial to open/strike were upheld |
| Appealability of order denying stay of writ of execution | Denial of stay effectively terminates his ability to prevent sale and thus is appealable | Order denying stay was interlocutory and not a final appealable order | Appeal quashed: denial of stay was interlocutory (not appealable as of right) |
| Mootness of appeal of denial to reinstate nunc pro tunc appeal of motion to postpone sale | Reinstatement would affect the sale timing | Unit was already sold at sheriff’s sale, so reinstatement cannot provide relief | Appeal quashed as moot because the sale occurred and requested relief was impossible |
| Requests for postponement/supersedeas and to set aside sheriff’s sale post-sale | Challenged service, asserted statutory and constitutional violations and sought injunctions/supersedeas | Remedies should proceed via proper procedures (petition to set aside sale); supersedeas requires appellate procedures/bond; many claims waived if not raised below | Trial court’s denials and procedural rulings affirmed; post-sale petitions largely dismissed or denied as premature/moot; appeals affirmed on trial court opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- PhilcoCorp v. Sunstein, 241 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1968) (whether a stay order is final depends on its practical effect)
- Farmer’s First Bank v. Wagner, 687 A.2d 390 (Pa. Super. 1997) (denial of stay of sheriff’s sale is interlocutory when it does not end litigation)
- National Penn Bank v. Shaffer, 672 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 1996) (challenge to a sheriff’s sale proceeds by petition to set aside sale)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Co. v. Butler, 868 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appeal rendered moot where property was resold after a sale that had been contested)