J-A10024-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COLIN M. BROWN AND VANESSA 

JAMES-BROWN 

Appellant

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE 

COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1737 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at 

No(s): 11-50902

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2018

Colin M. Brown and Vanessa James Brown appeal from the order 

granting Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s (“Liberty Mutual”) Motion 

to Mark Judgment Satisfied. We affirm.

The Browns initiated this action by filing a writ of summons against 

Liberty Mutual. On March 23, 2011, the Browns filed a complaint. On August 

19, 2015, the trial court held a non-jury trial. On August 31, 2015, the trial 

court entered a verdict finding in favor of the Browns and against Liberty 

Mutual and awarding $11,000.00 in damages. The Browns filed a notice of 

appeal. This Court dismissed the appeal because the Browns had not filed a 

post-trial motion and, therefore, waived any claims on appeal. Order, 2913 

EDA 2015 (Pa.Super. filed 12/16/2015).
J-A10024-18

- 2 -

On January 18, 2016, Liberty Mutual sent the Browns an $11,000.00

check and a Praecipe to Mark the Judgment Satisfied and requested that the 

Browns execute the Praecipe. On February 12, 2016, Liberty Mutual sent a 

revised Praecipe, as the first Praecipe named Nationwide Property and 

Casualty Insurance as the defendant rather than Liberty Mutual. The Browns 

did not execute either Praecipe. Liberty Mutual then filed, on July 6, 2016, a 

Motion to Mark Judgment Satisfied. In response, the Browns filed a Motion to 

Stop Entry of Order to Mark Judgment Satisfied. After a hearing, the trial court 

granted Liberty Mutual’s motion.1 The Browns filed a Post-Trial Motion and 

Notice of Appeal. The trial court treated the Post-Trial Motion as a motion for 

reconsideration and denied it.

The Browns raise the following issues on appeal:

I. Whether the lower court abused its discretion and 

committed an error of law in marking the judgment 

satisfied?

II. Whether the lower court abused its discretion and 

committed an error in marking a judgment satisfied after 

evidence of fraud, an unfair hearing and process violating 

pro se Appellants due process? 

Browns’ Br. at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

The Browns attempt to make arguments challenging pre-trial matters

and errors during the non-jury trial. We, however, cannot address the pretrial and trial issues, as we previously found the Browns waived all issues 

relating to the judgment by failing to file a post-trial motion following the 

____________________________________________

1 The record does not contain a transcript of this hearing. 
J-A10024-18

- 3 -

August 2015 trial. The only issue before this Court at this point is whether the 

trial court properly granted the Motion to Mark Judgment Satisfied. 

“A judgment creditor who has received satisfaction of any judgment in 

any tribunal of this Commonwealth shall, at the written request of the 

judgment debtor, or of anyone interested therein, and tender of the fee for 

entry of satisfaction, enter satisfaction in the office of the clerk of the court 

where such judgment is outstanding, which satisfaction shall forever discharge 

the judgment.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8104(a); see also Wilk v. Kochara, 647 A.2d 

595, 596 (Pa.Super. 1994) (“The payment of a judgment and entry of 

satisfaction discharges the judgment.”). A trial court may strike the 

satisfaction of judgment where the satisfaction “has been obtained through 

fraud or mistake.” Wilk, 647 A.2d at 597.

The Browns maintain the judgment should not be marked satisfied 

because the amount of damages awarded, $11,000.00, does not compensate 

them for the damage to their property. The Browns do not dispute that Liberty 

Mutual paid them $11,000.00, and do not argue that Liberty Mutual satisfied 

the judgment through fraud or mistake. Therefore, the trial court did not err 

in marking the judgment satisfied.2

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

2 The Browns’ Motion for Continuance is denied as moot.
J-A10024-18

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/18