Mountain View Condominium Ass'n v. Bomersbach
734 A.2d 468
Pa. Commw. Ct.
1999
Check Treatment

*1 however, important, Most is the Su-

preme recognition Court’s legislative 301(c)(2)

intent behind prevent prevent

stale speculation claims and to

over the many cause of a years disease exposure occurred,

after conditions

that did Sporio. not exist in The court that allowing

also noted benefits in that purposes

case furthered the remedial

the Act. It is clear the purposes that here 301(c)(2)

of Section have been met. Peti- presented

tioner has not claim nor stale

is there a prevent need to speculation over occupational

whether the decedent’s dis- many

ease is years work-related after his exposure.

last This Court too must con- Act, purposes

sider remedial of the

which is to substitute a speedy and less

costly alternative to common law tort compensation provide

claims to employ- injuries.

ees who suffer Spo- work-related

rio; see also Gardner v. Erie Insurance (the

Co., (1999) 555 Pa.

Act is to liberally be construed favor injured employee and in favor fur- Act).

thering purposes humanitarian of the

That construction will be fostered

Court’s reversal of the Board’s order and well-reasoned,

reinstatement of the WCJ’s

thoughtful and particularly thorough deci- grant

sion to benefits Petitioner.

MOUNTAIN VIEW CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION BOMERSBACH, Appellant.

Maria P. Pennsylvania.

Commonwealth Court

Argued May 1999.

Decided Reargument Gibson, Media, Aug. Denied Kevin William for appel-

lant. Setzler, Chester,

Holly ap- L. West pellee. *2 attorney its in J., SMITH, J„ fully provide for DOYLE, and not

Before paid Appellant NARICK, In November Judge. Senior full, which at delinquent assessment her NARICK, Judge. Senior $3,831.49. Appel- to time had risen that presented The issue is whether refused, however, the As- pay to lant still County Pleas Chester fees, grown which had attorney sociation’s (trial court) calculating the rea- erred years la- $3,135.93. ten Approximately to attorney fees to which the Moun- sonable ter, attorney fees now (Asso- tain View Condominium Association $46,548.64. at stand ciation) to from Maria is entitled recover appeal on for now before us This case is it Because did (Appellant). Bomersbach adjudi first time we The a second time. not, is af- the decision of the trial court case, McGinley, in a cated firmed. View opinion, Mountain memorandum In facts are as follows. The relevant Condominium, Association Owners’ a Appellant, who owns condominium (Pa.Cmwlth. Bomersbach, A.2d 619 View, stopped paying her at Mountain 1997), a trial court order reversed monthly due assessment to Association only enti the Association was found that Association. Pursu- dispute to a with the incurred on attorney to fees tled recover ant to the “Declaration Condominium Judge McGinley or before March (Declaration), all condo- Mountain View” to all held that the Association is required pay minium are to owners in this attorney fees incurred reasonable to monthly to the Association assessment time, present case, up including landscaping help things for such as pay case to the trial and remanded the security. purpose limited specific provides Section 14.7 of the Declaration of the le determining the reasonableness entitled to recover that the Association is by the Association. fees incurred gal incurred in all reasonable fees from a delinquent assessments collecting remand, presented On Association authority to owner.1 Such condominium testimony attorney Robert expert provided fees is also collect Lentz, legal paid bills who reviewed 3315 of the Uniform Condominium bills attorney. the Association § (Act), Act 3315.2 Pa.C.S. expended time and actual listed the rates delinquency reached Appellant’s When attorney, Mr. by the Association’s $1,200.00, sued collect Association attorney’s actual compared to the Lentz sub- past Appellant due assessment. opined that the product. Mr. Lentz work $1,200.00, agreed pay but sequently that the fair and reasonable bills were pay the refused to Association’s Association provided to the legal services fees, The As- which then totaled $500.00. necessary. were accept of- Appellant’s declined sociation the ex- conversely, provided Appellant, $1,200.00, choosing to en- instead fer Reginald testimony pert full right to collect the $500.00 force its Krasney opined Krasney. Mr. which it incurred. not legal bill was $1,400.00, Association’s but the her offer to then raised should the Association it did reasonable because because again declined Association - “(f) judgment attorney's A specifically Costs and the Declaration 1. Section 14.7 of states, brought part, any "... The under as follows: action or suit in relevant or decree obligated delinquent Unit owner shall be and reasonable include costs this section shall Board, (a) pay including expenses all the Executive party.” prevailing for the attorneys’ fees incurred delinquent assessment the collection of in by legal proceedings otherwise....” employed have attorney,” “collection attorney, used a different rather it is may agreed have to collect Appel- charged whether the fees the attor- lant’s ney assessment a contin- it did use were fair and reasonable. gent fee basis. According to Mr. Kras- court, noted, accepted as as ney, if the employed Association had *3 credible testimony the of Mr. Lentz and attorney, collection then its legal bills held that the reasonably Association in- would only have been a fraction of what $46,548.64 in attorney curred fees. The they finally totaled in this case. trial Appellant court thus to pay ordered Association, trial court accepted as credible the this to amount with inter- testimony witness, of the Association’s Mr. est Appellant again appeals and costs. to Lentz, legal that the fees this incurred Court.3 Association were reasonable. The trial appeal,4 Appellant argues On that rejected the opinion Krasney Mr. $46,548.64 fee, is an unreasonable and that

that the Association had obligation an to the Association should have mitigated its employ a collection attorney lieu of its damages by accepting Appellant’s compro own real attorney. estate Said the trial mise Appellant offer. also argues that the court: Association is not collect attor Defense argued counsel that the Associ- ney expended collecting fees ation should have elected to use a “col- disagree points. We both attorney” lection opposed as to a real estate attorney noted, to collect delinquent As Appellant argues first that $46,548.64 fees. Defendant’s counsel Appel- is fee. unreasonable argued further a that, that urges attor- lant original “collection because the delin- ney” $1,200.00 would have taken the a quent matter on only assessment was contingent fee legal basis and that original attorney fees only fees were $500.00, would have been significantly entity expend less. no reasonable would docket argument entries belie this such a sum large money such collect reveal a defendant engaged in a small Appellant’s debt. intui- argument simple fact, tréneh warfare. A complaint [by tively and, in makes sense Appellant greeted Association] was a has verita- cited a federal court case that so ble pleadings onslaught However, which I imagine holds.5 reject we this reasoning would have any competent rendered above, on the facts of this case. As noted attorney” “collection shell-shocked. the trial court found that the Appellant However, has, the issue before me is not years, for over ten engaged legal whether the Association should subjected have “trench warfare” and the Associ- 3.During argument appeal, the oral of this is determining Our review limited to wheth- Gibson, Appellant, counsel for Kevin William er the trial court violated constitutional Esq., insinuated that his client received an discretion, rights, abused or committed an adverse decision before City Philadelphia, error of law. Mann judge, Pleas Judge because the trial President (1989), 128 Pa.Cmwlth. 563 A.2d 1284 Gavin, against Thomas G. was biased him. denied, appeal Pa. pressed explain When this remark and directly when asked that if was his accusa- was, tion, Mr. Judge Gibson stated that it that Appellant Pennsylvania has cited no case and, that, Gavin biased was because of his proposition, law for this and we are likewise impar- client unable to was receive a fair and Furthermore, any. express unaware of we no However, hearing. tial he admitted that at no reasonable, opinion herein as to whether it is during litigation request time did he general proposition, entity as a for an to ex- Ap- Gavin recuse and did nowhere pend greater amount in than pellant appeal. raise this as an issue in this conclude, therefore, money attempting the amount of it is col- We that Mr. Gibson's re- lect, ill-advised, holding inappropriate, and our marks were reprehensible. is thus limited to the specific facts case. that, points out be Appellant would next “pleadings onslaught” that ation to entire as paid her “shell- cause she competent render even $3,831.49 in November Furthermore, sessment shocked.” legal Association’s bill majority crystal is right to collect likely at spent was most unequivocally established Sec- clear tempting to collect tion 14.7 the Declaration and pay. Appel Act, refused to reject Appel- 3815 of the and we thus argues the Association lant then plea lant’s Association was bound attorney fees ex to collect not entitled than the full sum accept something less attempting to pended in collect Again quote to which it was entitled. we Appellant, Unfortunately for from the of the well-reasoned *4 decided, already addressed and issue was court: As in favor of the against Appellant and suit, As- the initiation of the the [S]inee sociation, in the 1997 memoran essentially conduct was de- sociation’s Ac by McGinley. dum By simple that I mean a rather fensive. it “law of the case” and cordingly, is the of aby case for collection fees was met by cannot be disturbed this Court absent [by seeking to Appellant] counterclaim circumstances, change of of compelling join the individual the directors of Asso- v. which there are none. Commonwealth defendants, as additional ciation Starr, (1995); 541 Pa. A claim took on life of its own. fair v. School Human Relations Commission review of the docket entries in this mat- Philadelphia, 161 Pa.Cmwlth. District of philos- ter the warfare evidences trench 658, 638 A.2d 304 of The Associa- ophy [Appellant], the trial the order of the court Accordingly, backing option tion had the of either off is affirmed. enforcing or it the Declara- rights under tion and the decisional law. The fact ORDER compromise, it elected not to th NOW, day July, AND this principal uphold and the law stand Pleas of the order of requires fees be cov- its County above-captioned in Chester Any contrary holding ered. to the hereby is matter affirmed. in would cause chaos Condominium As- compliant sociations whose members SMITH, Judge, dissenting. dealing have to would bear cost majority non-compliant respectfully I dissent from the [Appel- with members. opportunities to re- affirm of the Court of had numerous decision to the order lant] County put Pleas of Chester award- position evaluate her an end Common $46,548.64 incurred litigation. ing On December position Condominium Associa- by the error of her should have Mountain View manifestly (Appellee) to collect a been clear virtue of tion (Ap- charged in fee it Maria P. Bomersbach [As- award arbitrators favor her Regrettably, pellant) recover associa- against her. sociation] Appellant apparently of docket followed the tion assessments. pages six entries in in all placed escrow assessments Again, award of arbitrators. a fair read- Appellee Ap- from ing pending accounting due [in docket entries reveals in justify not its increase pellant] litigant simply will choice, It is unrea- monthly totally in quit. The Association had no assessment. sonable, unconscionable, view, pursue perhaps le- this but to writer’s in so position. It has done allow gally correct absolutely no for the when the record leaves is to be reimbursed case responsibility Appellee doubt that shares expenses of so. doing Gavin) with for the continuation of (Judge Appellee awarded its full litigation year. $46,548.64. now its tenth demand While not authority, the federal district matter, On remand of this the trial court decision Hilferty Chevrolet Mo Gavin) (Judge commented that the docket tors, (E.D.Pa.), 1996 WL 287276 with aff'd entries reveal a defendant (Appellant) en- (3d opinion, Cir.1997), out 116 F.3d 468 gaged in “trench warfare” and that cited Appellant, persuasive. is In that “veritable pleadings onslaught” would have plaintiffs ease the sought to recover their left any competent lawyer collection shell- connection with entry shocked. apparent frustration of the judgment favor, in their valued at judge understandable; however, $4,070. applicable statutory standard docket entries history and case cannot governing the recovery plaintiffs erase the parties fact that both bear re- attorney fees was one of “reasonableness.” sponsibility for the “trench warfare” in this The court stated that no person reasonable case and that the attorney fees awarded do $12,750 pay would attorney fees to re- not bear a relation to the result $4,070 cover a claim in a alleging case obtained to the by Appel- loss suffered violations, alia, inter of Pennsylvania’s Au- lee. *5 Law, 28, tomobile Lemon Act of March 1984, 150, 1951-1963, P.L. §§ 73 P.S. Appellee originally appealed to this that there must be some rational relation- Court from August 1995 decision of ship between the amount of loss suffered another judge of the Court of Common and attorney fees incurred in attempting (Judge Melody) Pleas granted partial to recover the loss. The court awarded far summary judgment in the plaintiffs than sought less in attorney January 1989 lawsuit against filed her by Appellee to recover the delinquent assess- Supreme The U.S. Court’s decision in ments. judge The trial refused to allow Eckerhart, 424, Hensley v. 461 103 U.S. by fees incurred Appellee after 1933, (1983), S.Ct. 76 L.Ed.2d 40 might 3, March 1989 because the fees after that guidance offer further in this situation. date were unconscionable and unreason- The Court vacated an fees award able; however, Appellee was entitled to and remanded the case for the district fees incurred before court to award by fees allowable federal March the date on Appel- statute in accordance with specifically stat- lant tendered a Appellee, check to which it ed standards. It noted that the extent of a rejected, to outstanding past-due settle the party’s success the most factor critical plus assessments interest. This Court af- determining proper award firmed the opinion trial court by and order fees and that an award should be reason- in April filed 1997 but Appellee allowed able in relation to the result obtained litigate reasonableness of fees incurred prevailing party. factors, Other 29, 1980, before November Appellee when among many, to consider in determining ultimately accepted Appellant’s payment of reasonableness of fees include all outstanding assessments late time and labor required perform the However, upon reconsideration at the re- task, novelty and difficulty question quest of Appellee, the Court withdrew its presented and whether the attorney fee is April 1997 and order and issued a contingent. fixed Id. See also Farrar new decision in July reversing Judge v. Hobby, 506 U.S. S.Ct. Melody and remanding the case to the L.Ed.2d 494 litigate the “reasonableness” of the attorney fees incurred by Appellee I believe that it is simply irrational for a Supreme this action. Court denied litigant to incur allocatur. On remand $500, the trial court to collect particularly when the mat- years many ter could have been resolved were delinquent assessments

ago, resolution of

placed pending escrow accounting dispute, and after ten-

routine inter- plus

der the assessments rejected Appellee because the

est were simultaneously attorney fee was not the trial court I would reverse

offered. the court to enter

and return case to attorney fees consid-

award for reasonable arriving at pertinent factors

ering all for an There is no need

just decision. hearing.

additional Petitioner, McCORMICK,

William *6 AP-

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CITY

PEAL OF PHIL- BOARD

ADELPHIA), Respondent. Pennsylvania.

Commonwealth Court of April

Submitted on Briefs

Decided