Washington Area Humane v. Harr, C., 336 WDA 2021

Background:

On October 30, 2019, Washington Area Humane Society (WAHS) seized 206 animals from Christie Dee Harr’s properties after suspected animal-cruelty conditions.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) assisted WAHS with logistics, transport, veterinary care and locating out-of-state shelter space; parties memorialized their working relationship in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
WAHS filed a petition under the Costs of Care of Seized Animals Act (CCSAA) seeking reimbursement for boarding and veterinary expenses incurred caring for Harr’s seized animals; some care occurred out-of-state and bills were paid through HSUS arrangements.
A hearing was held on February 5, 2021 (Harr did not appear); the trial court entered judgment for WAHS for $1,113,765.33.
Harr appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because an indispensable party (HSUS) was not joined and contending HSUS actually incurred the costs and may have acted unlawfully; the Superior Court reviewed de novo.
The Superior Court affirmed, finding HSUS was not an indispensable party because WAHS retained the right to pursue reimbursement under the MOU, Harr waived several challenges by failing to raise them below, and the record supported WAHS’s recovery.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (WAHS)	Defendant's Argument (Harr)	Held
Whether failure to join HSUS deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction	WAHS was the proper party to pursue costs under the CCSAA; MOU assigned recovery to WAHS	HSUS was indispensable because it conducted the investigation, seized animals, paid most expenses, and held the billing records	Court: HSUS not indispensable; MOU and testimony show WAHS had the right to seek reimbursement; jurisdiction proper
Whether WAHS could recover expenses for care performed/ billed out-of-state	CCSAA permits a society to seek reasonable costs of care; WAHS pursued reimbursement per MOU	WAHS cannot recover expenses it did not itself incur, especially for out-of-state providers	Court: Rejected Harr’s limitation argument; no legal bar shown to recovery for out-of-state costs when WAHS sought reimbursement under the MOU
Whether HSUS’s alleged unlawful actions (seizure/transport) bar recovery	WAHS: Harr failed to raise these claims below; issues waived	Harr: HSUS acted beyond authority and illegally, so WAHS should be denied recovery	Court: Claims waived for failure to raise at trial; cannot be asserted for first time on appeal
Sufficiency of evidence re: MOU and who incurred costs	WAHS: Testimony at hearing established MOU terms and that WAHS would pursue reimbursement	Harr: MOU not submitted into evidence; thus WAHS not proper party to collect	Court: Harr did not preserve a sufficiency challenge; testimonial record supported the court’s finding that WAHS had authority to seek reimbursement

Key Cases Cited

Sabella v. Appalachian Dev. Corp., 103 A.3d 83 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to join indispensable party implicates subject-matter jurisdiction)
Barren v. Dubas, 441 A.2d 1315 (Pa. Super. 1982) (failure to join indispensable party goes to jurisdiction and may be raised sua sponte)
City of Phila. v. Commonwealth, 838 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2003) (definition of when a party is indispensable and rights so connected that decree would impair them)
Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184 (Pa. 1988) (framework for indispensable-party analysis)
Grimme Combustion, Inc. v. Mergentime Corp., 595 A.2d 77 (Pa. Super. 1991) (party not indispensable if no redress sought against it and its rights won’t be prejudiced)
Martin v. Rite Aid of Pa., Inc., 80 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2013) (factors to weigh in indispensable-party determination)
Orman v. Mortgage I.T., 118 A.3d 403 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussion of jurisdictional nature of indispensable-party defense and standard of review)
Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist., 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction issues)