*3 SOLE, sеttlement, and Before DEL STEVENS loan. Id. “At the secured BROSKY, defendant Se- plaintiffs repeatedly JJ. advised to curity being paid that the amount
STEVENS, J.:
in
of the secured
satisfaction
Corestates
¶ 1 Appellants, Marion and Steele
incorrect; however, defendant
loan seemed
Chendorian, appeal
McKeeman and Rose
that
Security repeatedly
plaintiffs
assured
from an ordеr of the Court of Common
being paid off and
the correct loan was
Philadelphia County,
grant-
Pleas of
which
worry.” Id. Because
they
that
should not
PA,
Appellee Security
off,
Abstract of
Inc.’s
was,
fact,
ed
in
paid
the incorrect loan
affirm,
objections. We
in
preliminary
outstanding
remained
on
mortgage
reverse,
part,
part.
and
property,
“plaintiffs repeatedly
and while
rectify
asked defendants to
their mistake
¶ 2 The record reflects that the McKee-
plaintiffs
... defendants refused to assist
complaint
mans and Chendorian filed a
Through
Id. at 2-3.
any manner.”
(hereinafter
Complaint”) against
“the
counsel,
defen-
plaintiffs contacted both
(hereinafter
Corestates Bank
“Cores-
plaintiffs’
them of
will-
dants and advised
tates”)
(hereinafter
Security
and
Abstract
ingness
payoff
to have the
transferred
27, 1998,
“Security”)
January
stemming
on
loan,
initially
but defendants
the correct
from transactions
and
surrounding the sale
correspondence, then re-
ignored counsel’s
property.
settlement of the McKeeman’s
quested
“plaintiffs
that
incur additional
Complaint alleges
September,
The
that
docu-
having
prepare
fees in
their counsel
process
the McKeeman’s were
Id. at
rectify
ments to
defendants’ error.”
Complaint
of
at 2.
selling their residence.
turn,
“Plaintiffs,
requested
that de-
property
Settlement of the
conducted
their error without re-
fendants correct
by Security, acting as title
settle-
and/or
additional
quiring
plaintiffs
to incur
[sic]
buyers.
prepa-
ment clerks for the
Id. “In
fees,”
instead, the Complaint
counsel
but
settlement,
provid-
ratiоn for
plaintiffs
wrongfully seized
alleges, Corestates
regarding
ed
with information
Chendorian,
$4,700.00from the account of
loan accounts
them
de-
two
held
way
any
in no
involved with
“who was
Corestates,”
of which was
fendant
one
se-
transactions,”
that
claiming
residence,
by mortgage against
cured
it was entitled to the funds
satisfaction
and the other of which was unsecured.1
on
loan.
payments owing
thе secured
Complaint
alleges
The
further
that
Id.
seizing
consequence
Id. As a
of Corestates
pass
order for
clear title
plaintiffs
“[i]n
savings, the
refusing to return her life
and
necessary
to the
it was
for them
property,
suffered
Complaint alleges, Chendorian
account
to insure that
the secured loan
requiring treat-
hysteria
chest
and
pains
settlement,”
at
and
was retired
the time
prеscription
physician
ment
her
re-
“Security
accepted
that
undertook
of medication. Id.
that the secured
sponsibility
insuring
circumstances,
Id.
a result of these
retired at settlement.”
To
3 As
loan was
alleges that Corestates
end,
“plaintiffs supplied defendant Se-
jointly
plaintiffs,
instead of
Complaint only
that the loan
themselves
1. The
indicates
being
persons
person or
specifying which
by "plaintiffs,” and does
accounts were held
contains in-
also
the McKeemans and
discussed.
not differentiate between
jointly men-
the defendants are
displeasure that
stances where
We note with
Chendorian.
tioned,
between Secu-
throughout
without differentiation
there are several similar instances
rity
parties
and Corestates.
Complaint where the
refer
(2)
(1)
1925(a)
apрellant’s
An
failure to
guilty
negligence,
opinion.
were
1925(b)
(4)
contract,
statement
include an issue
his
conspiracy,
breach of
con-
version,
purposes
appellate
inflic- waives that issue for
intentional/negligent
Lord,
553 Pa.
review. Commonwealth
Gomplaint
tion of emotional distress. The
(1998).2
Appel-
not a to the contract between consequence Securi of action of de- As a Corestates, ty buyers and the of the plaintiff McKeeman resi fendant Rose Chen- dence, pains dorian was caused to sustain chest Security duty Appellants. owed a to by her hysteria requiring treatment Security not Appellants’ While was title physician prеscrip- and medication with agent, satisfy it undertook to the secured drugs. tion loan and relied to on demand, Despite defendant
perform.
Cores-
Security’s
It was to
benefit to
wrongfully
tates
to return these
confirm that
against
the recorded liens
refuses
to
Chendori-
plaintiff
seized funds
Rose
property
discharged,
were
and it did so
an’s account.
controlling the settlement distribution. As
such, we cоnclude that the trial court erred
at 3. The lack of conversion
Complaint
title insur-
granting Security’s preliminary objec
allegations
Security, the
against
only
company,
surprising,
is not
tions as to the
claim.
ance
wrong.
Pennsylvania
specific
a
Norri
is defined under
intent to commit
Conversion
Realty Corp.
Na
law as:
ton
v. Central-Penn
East
57,
Bank, 435 Pa.
nary objection properly granted as to civil here on that claim. conspiracy based conspiracy claim.
¶ Turning Appellants’ allega f 14 order to state a civil guilty tion that of intention consрiracy, complaint action for a must distress, al/negligent infliction of emotional allege of two more combination or asserts that: persons acting purpose with a common The aforesaid conduct of defendants do act or a lawful act an unlawful to do was undertaken in concert and with the pur unlawful means or for an unlawful specific physical pain intent to cause pose; pursuance an overt act done *6 suffering plaintiffs[5] by emotional to legal the common actual purpose; and wrongfully improperly seizing and the Shubert, v. 722 A.2d damage. McGuire savings eighty-year plaintiff life of old (Pa.Super.1998). Additionally, Rose Chendorian particu “absent a civil cause of action for a of intentional consequence As the act, lar there can be no cause of action for defendants, and conduct of malicious conspiracy civil to commit that act.” Pela plaintiffs physical pain sustained and Cohen, gatti distress, v. manifesting emotional chest (1987) (citation omitted). 1337, 1342 nausea, pains, pains, stomach tremulous- ness, headaches, which symptoms and ¶ conspiracy portion 15 The of the Com- pre- and rеquired medical treatment plaint avers that and Corestates medication. scription act conspired to commit an unlawful this claim follows the Complaint at 8. As follows: con- Complaint’s allegations negligence, of hereto, At all times material defen- conversion, Appel- and we assume spiracy, agreed by dants and between them- referring allegations lants are tо those satisfy to se- plaintiffs selves to refuse when reference the defendants’ loan account with defendant cured As we have stated “aforesaid conduct.” in an effort to extort monies Corestates objection was previously, preliminary and with the intention of plaintiffs regard from the con- granted properly such, injury causing, intentional and malicious claims. As conspiracy version and in their financial and busi- conclude that it was error for plaintiffs we cannot objee- grant preliminary the trial court to ness affairs. allegations that the Although portion the al- makes it clear this of apply physical pain leges physical pain of and emotional distress "plaintiffs” sustained Chendorian, distress, not the McKeemans. the remainder of the and emotiоnal con- egregious “outrageous not include intentional/negligent infliction tion to the Moreover, disregard [Ap- we note done in a reckless claim on this basis. duct Hyundai rights.” Johnson pellants’] that: (Pa.Su- America, 698 A.2d Motor determine, in “It is for the court (“[A] may punitive award court per.1997) instance, whether actor’s con- first if an actor’s conduct damages only regarded as so reasonably duct can be willful, malicious, wanton, or oppressive, permit outrageous as to extreme indifference to the a reckless exhibited recovery.” defining outrageous (citations omitted). others.”) rights has this Court requirement, conduct stated: reasons, we af- 19 For the only where Liability has been found objections to preliminary firm grant outrageous the conduct has been so and revеrse complaint, part, Appellants’ character, degree, and so extreme in claim. as to the go beyond possible as to all bounds of ¶20 Affirmed, Reversed, part; regarded as atro- decency, to be proceedings Remanded for consis- part; cious, utterly intolerable a civi- decision; Jurisdiction relin- tent with case is society. Generally, lized quished. in which the recitаtion of the facts one average
to an member of the commu- BROSKY, Concurring Opinion by J. nity would arouse his resentment actor, him against and lead J., BROSKY, concurring. exclaim, “Outrageous.” join majority’s disposition 1 I in the relating to the trial court’s arguments [Bjecause al- Appellant we find has not in favor of grant of a demurrer leged outrageous by Appellee conduct or Abstract. University, we need discuss ¶ However, separately whether tort of intentional infliction I write to also actually recog- Ap- majority’s disposition of emotional distress is address Pennsylvania. nized in the trial pellants’ first issue: whether refusing its discretion court abused Scranton, University Strickland com- Appellants leave to amend the grant (citations (Pa.Super.1997) A.2d *7 that majority The has concluded plaint. omitted). Similarly, we will not disturb Supreme by set forth our principles the trial court’s conclusion that Lord, in v. 553 Pa. Commonwealth Court outrageous alleged have not conduct case, (1998), 415, a criminal A.2d 306 719 intention- Security which would constitute in civil cases.” equally applicable “are infliction of emotional distress. al/negligent Therefore, the ma- at 4-5. Memorandum that Appellants lastly 18 assert concludes, has been this issue jority damages. punitive are entitled to it failure to include by Appellants’ waived that Cores- Specifically, Appellants assert 1925(b) in statement. their reckless con Security displayed tates and however, Lord, addressed specifically imposition 3 duct which would warrant 1410 Pa.R.Crim.P. con the issue of “whether damages. light of our punitive deeming court from objection aрpellate an precludes that preliminary clusion fails to Appellant when an regard to the con an issue waived granted properly of Mat- in his Statement version, raise that issue intentional/negli conspiracy, claims, Appeal pursuant of on Complained ters of emotional distress gent infliction 1025(b).” A.2d at 307. 719 are not Pa.R.A.P. punitive damages it clear that Supreme to our presented thus thereto. As to the issue regard warranted with interpre- construction and claim, it involved conclude that does Court we 1410 and Pa. it tation of both Pa.R.Crim.P. damages as does punitive not warrant 662 1925(b) would, analysis, I conclude ques-
R.A.P. to determine whether ed. under this Appellant’s argument a criminal that has therefore following raised conviction tions appellate Taylor, supra. had preserved pursuant been review. been waived only I in the Accordingly, concur result My unwavering, 4 concern is with majority’s disposition of the issue of application of Lord to all cases on blanket complaint. amendment of the I appeal. do not read the decision Lord automatically preclude consideration of case, all civil and criminal evеry issues appellant
where an has failed to include a 1925(b)
specific question his statement. such an our interpretation
Absent Su- banc, en I
preme Court or this Court
would decline to so hold. See Common- 707, PA Steadley,
wealth v. 748 A.2d KUNEY, George former husband J., concurring Super (Popovich, (In- Kuney, Kuney Adrienne Adrienne such blanket dissenting) (questioning Plaintiff) voluntary former wife of Lord, application language of the George Kuney, Appellants, Superior that has discre- concluding Court by an tion to consider an issue raised 1925).
appellant provided by Pa.R.A.P. CLINIC, Dr. FRANKLIN BENJAMIN ¶ Moreover, I would decline to so ex Silber, Pennsylvania Steven presented tend Lord to the situation Hospital, Appellees. instead, would, appeal. I focus on instant Pennsylvania. Superior Court of effec longstanding analysis whether appellate tive review has been foreclosed. 5, Argued April See, e.g., Taylor Owens-Coming Fiberg April Filed A.2d 681 Corp., las (1995), denied, appeal 544 Pa. (1996)(failure particu to raise a
A.2d 1201
lar issue concise statement of matters
complained appeal may of on result issue, that failure
waiver of that where review); appellate
hinders effective Pa. (same). Douglass,
R.A.P. 1925 Giles v. Cf. Super PA
(ruling appellant failure of to file
1925(b) all issues for ap statement waived review).
pellate
¶ A of whether amend- determination pleadings permitted
ment should be discretion of the
rests within the sound Borough Mifflinburg trial court.
Heim,
(Pa.Super.1997).
Appellants failed to raise
1925(b) statement, the trial court did Appellants’ com-
address amendment of trial the benefit of the
plaint. Without such failing permit
court’s reasons for
amendment, appellate effective review has been foreclos-
its exercise of discretion