Case Information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MONA LISA BROWN ^[1] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TIAN XIAO ZHANG

Appellant No. 2016 Appeal from the Judgment Entered 2016 the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): October Term, No. 00857 BEFORE: OTT, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* FILED MAY 08, 2017

MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: Tian Xiao appeals from the entered May 6, 2016. At issue court's Appellant's motion dismiss lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We

Appellee, Mona Lisa Brown, instituted negligence action April 17, slip fall at Appellant. Complaint, III himself pro se prevailed at arbitration. Answer Complaint, 1-6; Report Award of Arbitrators, 7/22/14. arbitrators' award, matter proceeded to jury. Notice Appeal from Award, 7/24/14. April 2015, the jury $175,000.00 favor of Appellee against Appellant. See Jury Verdict ^[*] Former Justice specially assigned the Superior Court.

for Plaintiff, 4/14/15, at 1-2. At time during the proceedings did Appellant aver that his wife was a co-owner of the Property.

Appellant, now counsel, untimely filed a motion for post -trial relief. See Motion Post Trial Relief, 7/15/15, 1-12. The motion did aver Appellant's wife was a co-owner of property. The court dismissed Appellant's motion as untimely. timely appealed, but his appeal was dismissed for failure comply with Pa.R.A.P. Order, 2015.

On November 30, 2015, Appellant filed a motion seeking to dismiss Appellee's complaint for lack matter jurisdiction. Motion to Dismiss, The motion averred trial court matter jurisdiction, had failed to an indispensable party. According his wife was co-owner of the Proeprty had been named defendant. Id. Appellee filed an answer opposition. court denied Appellant's motion.

On May his motion.' filed court -ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, trial issued responsive opinion. ' 2016, Appellee filed praecipe enter same day. such, appeal has been perfected properly before this Court. See generally, Johnston Florist, Inc. Tedco Constr. Corp., Super. 1995) (en banc) (holding that jurisdiction this Court may perfected after an notice has been filed upon the docketing of final judgment). appeal, raises single question our review: trial court lacks matter jurisdiction to

Whether a entertain personal injury action alleging an unsafe condition property, when the record owners of the property are named defendants? Appellant's Brief at 1-2. argues the initial action improperly brought against individually against the joint owners of the as

required Pennsylvania law. See Appellant's Brief at Appellee failed join indispensable party, matter jurisdiction, the action should be dismissed, verdict are nullities. Id.

It is well settled failure to indispensable party is non- waivable defect implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Sabella v. Appalachian Dev. Corp., A.3d 83, 90 (Pa. Super. 2014). In examining whether party is indispensable, courts may consider the criteria: 1) whether absent parties have right or interest related the claim; 2) the nature of the right or interest; 3) whether right or interest is essential merits of the issue; 4) whether justice may afforded without violating due process rights of absent parties. Mechanicsburg Area Sch. Dist. 1981). If redress is sought against party, then its rights would not prejudiced accordingly, it not essential. Grimme Combustion, Inc., 81 (Pa. Super. 1991).

Here, noted that judgment was in personam not in rem. See, generally, Insilco Corp. Rayburn, 123- (noting the differences between in rem judgment against property and an personam against individuals). trial court concluded that, Appellant cannot execute against held by tenants entireties, or any other property Ms. she will not adversely affected judgment. Thus, Ms. Zhang's rights interest case did rise to level to make her indispensable party. 956; Grimme, A.2d We see error in

this conclusion, accordingly,

Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

J seph D. Seletyn,

Prothonotary

Date: 5/8/2017