J-A25039-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

HIDDEN RIDGE CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATIONS, INC., A 

PENNSYLVANIA NON-PROFIT 

CORPORATION, AND JILL WANZIE, 

TOM BURICH, KATHLEEN RAUSCHER, 

KAREN LOFE AND COREY SIGLER, AS 

TRUSTEES AD LITEM OF THE 

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE HIDDEN 

RIDGE CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, ON THEIR OWN 

BEHALF OF ALL THE OTHERS 

SIMILARLY SITUATED

v.

P. RONALD SABATINO A./K/A 

RONALD SABATINO , SCIOTO 

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A 

PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION AND 

T&R PROPERTIES, INC., AN OHIO 

CORPORATION.

APPEAL OF: SCIOTO CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 873 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 16, 2021

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

No(s): GD-08-021879

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: MARCH 9, 2023

Scioto Construction Company (Scioto) appeals from the judgment 

entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas after the trial court 

granted Hidden Ridge Condominium Associations, Inc.’s (Hidden Ridge)
J-A25039-22

- 2 -

petition to enforce a settlement agreement. The court awarded damages to 

Hidden Ridge in the amount of $220,874.25 and struck a quitclaim deed 

recorded by Scioto on October 13, 2017, rendering Scioto responsible for the 

on-going maintenance of a stormwater detention facility on the subject parcel

until such time that it is dedicated to and accepted by the township. On 

appeal, Scioto argues the trial court erred by entering summary judgment in 

favor of Hidden Ridge when: (1) genuine issues of material fact remained; 

(2) the court failed to hold a trial or evidentiary hearing on Scioto’s affirmative 

defenses; (3) Hidden Ridge’s contract action is barred by the statute of 

limitations; (4) the damages award is unsupported by competent evidence; 

(5) the damages award contradicts the court’s prior ruling which was 

overturned on appeal; and (6) the language of the settlement agreement 

either did not require the township’s acceptance of the stormwater detention 

facility or was ambiguous as to that term. For the reasons below, we vacate

the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.

The tortured procedural history of this litigation began in 2008, 

generated one trial on an unrelated issue, and has resulted in four prior 

appeals to this Court. By way of background, “Scioto developed a 

condominium project in South Park Township, Allegheny County.” Hidden 

Ridge Condominium Assoc. v. Sabatino,

1 1272 WDA 2018, 1307 WDA 

____________________________________________

1 P. Ronald Sabatino is the managing member of Scioto and T & R Properties, 

which was also a named defendant in the original action. See Settlement 

Agreement & Release, 9/24/12, at 2.
J-A25039-22

- 3 -

2018, 1642 WDA 2018, 1692 WDA 2018 (unpub. memo. at 4) (Pa. Super. 

Oct. 1, 2019) (footnote omitted). In 2008, Hidden Ridge, on behalf of itself 

and all unit owners, initiated a civil action against Scioto and several other 

related defendants, asserting claims for, inter alia, unpaid condominium fees, 

breach of contract, breach of warranties, and misappropriation of funds. See

Hidden Ridge’s Amended Complaint in Equity & Civil Action Including Class 

Action Allegations, 11/4/09, at ¶¶ 66-81, 96-135, 144-50. However, as the 

trial court explains: “The crux of that litigation concerned the ramifications of 

the [condominium] plan’s designation as a ‘non-flexible’ . . . plan rather than 

a ‘flexible plan[,]’” which resulted in Scioto’s obligation to pay condominium 

fees. Trial Ct. Op., 11/8/21, at 7. The issue of the unpaid fees proceeded to 

a jury trial,2 and on June 4, 2012, the jury entered an award in favor of Hidden 

Ridge in the amount of $251,725. Id. Scioto filed an appeal to this Court, 

which affirmed the judgment. Hidden Ridge v. Sabatino v. J.R. Gales & 

Assoc., 1992 WDA 2012 (unpub. memo.) (Pa. Super. Dec. 18, 2013).

Meanwhile, on September 24, 2012, the parties entered into a 

Settlement Agreement and Release, by which Scioto agreed to pay Hidden 

Ridge $650,000 to resolve the remaining outstanding claims. See Settlement 

Agreement & Release at ¶ 1.1. In addition, and relevant to the matter herein, 

____________________________________________

2 Scioto filed an appeal from a prior order of the trial court which granted 

partial summary judgment. This Court quashed that appeal as interlocutory. 

See Hidden Ridge v. Sabatino v. J.R. Gales & Assoc., 79 WDA 2012

(unpub. memo.) (Pa. Super. Feb. 10, 2012).
J-A25039-22

- 4 -

the Settlement Agreement also included the following paragraph pertaining to 

the completion of construction of the development:

1.3 Scioto Build-Out. Scioto has built only 161 of the 181 

condominium units created by the Declaration and the Parties 

agree that the remaining 20 un-built Units shall be built (the “Build 

Out Units”). Scioto will commence construction on the Build Out 

Units no later than April 14, 2013, or as soon thereafter as 

conditions permit, and shall substantially complete such 

construction of the Build Out Units by December 31, 2014, and 

further agrees that the permanent storm water detention 

facilities shall be completed and dedicated to South Park 

Township by December, 2014. All construction shall be 

completed in accordance with the Developer’s Agreement with 

South Park Township, the Declaration and the Plans of Hidden 

Ridge, including, but not limited to, the completion of all 

permanent storm water detention facilities, as required by 

the applicable law, and including, but not limited to, the 

Ordinances of the Township of South Park and the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As to the completed 

Common Areas and Units, the Scioto Defendants shall have no 

obligation to complete, fix and/or repair any other alleged 

deficiency described by the Releasing Parties in the Hidden Ridge 

Action. 

Settlement Agreement & Release at ¶ 1.3 (some emphases added). 

On January 20, 2015, Hidden Ridge filed a Petition to Enforce Settlement 

Agreement, asserting Scioto failed to complete the permanent stormwater 

detention facility and dedicate it to South Park Township by December 2014, 

as required in the Settlement Agreement. Hidden Ridge’s Petition to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement, 1/20/15, at 2-3 (unpaginated). On February 17, 

2015, the trial court entered an order granting the petition, and directing 

Scioto as follows:

Scioto . . . shall complete construction of the permanent 

stormwater detention facilities and take the appropriate steps to 
J-A25039-22

- 5 -

have the facilities dedicated to and accepted by the 

Township, without further delay weather permitting. Should 

Scioto fail to satisfy any of these obligations by June 30, 2015

[Hidden Ridge] may then proceed with a Motion for Sanctions and 

request the entry of such sanctions as the court deems 

appropriate, including an award of reasonable attorney fees and 

any other reasonable costs associated with the construction 

and/or acceptance of the stormwater facilities.

Order, 2/17/15 (emphases added).

Almost three years later, on January 22, 2018, Hidden Ridge filed a 

motion for sanctions. See Hidden Ridge’s Motion for Sanction, 1/22/18. It 

asserted that Scioto “blatant[ly] disregard[ed]” the trial court’s February 2015 

order and, additionally, “allowed the condition of the pond to deteriorate” such 

that it was in “need of repair to satisfy the requirements of the Township[.]” 

Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. Additionally, Hidden Ridge alleged the “downspouts and lines 

which are in place to convey stormwater” to the pond were “in need of repair 

. . . to satisfy the Township standards for acceptance of the permanent 

stormwater detention facilities.” Id. at ¶ 9. 

The trial court conducted a contempt hearing on April 11, 2018. Hidden 

Ridge presented testimony concerning the deterioration of various drainage 

pipes throughout the development leading to the stormwater detention pond, 

and whether those pipes were part of the permanent stormwater detention 

facilities contemplated in the Settlement Agreement. See N.T., 4/11/18, at 

7-11, 45-47, 64, 85. Scioto presented evidence, inter alia, that a South Park 

Township ordinance “expressly” stated the Township “will not accept the

dedication of storm water detention and/or management systems.” Id. at 38 
J-A25039-22

- 6 -

(emphasis added); see also id. at 59. Two days later, the court entered an 

order, and accompanying memorandum, finding Scioto was in contempt of the 

court’s February 17, 2015, order. The court concluded “it was clearly 

established that the first formal attempt [by Scioto] to obtain approval from 

South Park Township for [the stormwater] detention facility was an email 

dated November 19, 2015[,]” almost five months after the court’s extended 

deadline. Trial Ct. Memo., 4/13/18, at 2 (unpaginated). The trial court also 

noted that Scioto presented evidence that the South Park Township zoning 

ordinance — which was in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement —

provided the Township would “not accept dedication of or accept a dedicated 

storm water facility.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the court scheduled 

a hearing “on the appropriate nature and/or amount of a sanction(s) to be 

imposed[.]” Order, 4/13/18.

The sanctions hearing proceeded on July 25, 2018. Hidden Ridge’s 

witnesses testified that it would cost $130,000 to replace the deteriorating 

pipes and drains, and $88,000 to bring the “existing storm water retention 

basin” to an acceptable standard for “dedication by a municipality.” N.T., 

7/25/18, at 41-42, 47-48, 57. Hidden Ridge also presented evidence that a 

permanent stormwater detention facility would incur “annual expected 

maintenance costs” of $5,000 to $10,000. Id. at 60. Lastly, Hidden Ridge 

presented evidence that on October 13, 2017 — without Hidden Ridge’s 

knowledge or approval — Scioto recorded a quitclaim deed to the parcel of 

land upon which the stormwater detention pond was located. See id. at 16. 
J-A25039-22

- 7 -

For its part, Scioto presented conflicting testimony that it would cost $20,240 

“to bring [the] pond up to standards[.]” Id. at 108, 123.

On August 1, 2018, the trial court entered an order directing Scioto to 

pay Hidden Ridge $39,283.05, to “restore the pond/water detention facility to 

a functioning condition.” Order, 8/1/18. The court also explicitly stated: 

“From the payment of said $39,283.05 forwards the responsibility of the 

maintenance and repair of the pond/water detention facility shall be with” 

Hidden Ridge. Id. In an accompanying memorandum opinion, the trial court 

acknowledged that while the Settlement Agreement required Scioto to 

dedicate the stormwater detention facility to South Park Township, “[i]t 

became apparent . . . that South Park Township does not accept for dedication 

or accept generally a storm water facility.” Trial Ct. Memo., 8/1/18, at 2 

(unpaginated). Therefore, the court noted “there is an impossibility in terms 

of performance[.]” Id. The court recognized Hidden Ridge’s position that 

Scioto should have requested an exception to the ordinance, which “some 

witnesses” stated was not “an unusual thing to do[.]” Id. However, it

observed “there was no proof offered by Hidden Ridge that such an exception 

would have been granted.” Id.

On August 8, 2018, Hidden Ridge filed a motion to mold the award,

requesting the court award both counsel and expert witness fees. In the 

meantime, Scioto appealed from the court’s contempt and sanction orders, 

and Hidden Ridge filed a cross-appeal. Thereafter, on October 23, 2018, the 

trial amended its August 1, 2018, order “to reflect that in addition to the award 
J-A25039-22

- 8 -

of $39,283.05,” it was awarding Hidden Ridge counsel and expert witness fees 

for a total award of $62,507.65. Order, 10/23/18. Scioto filed another appeal 

from this order, and Hidden Ridge cross-appealed. Both appeals and crossappeals were consolidated for disposition.

On October 1, 2019, a panel of this Court reversed the contempt order 

and vacated both sanctions orders. See Hidden Ridge Condominium 

Assoc., 1272 WDA 2018 et al. (unpub. memo. at 4). Specifically, the panel 

concluded that, while the record supported the trial court’s determination that 

Scioto “failed to complete its work in timely fashion,” the trial court did not

make any finding that Scioto acted willfully or with wrongful intent as is 

required to hold a party in civil contempt. See id. at 12-13. Relevant to the 

present appeal, the panel included the following footnote in its decision:

Of course, to the extent Hidden Ridge may conclude that Scioto 

has not met its obligations under the Settlement Agreement, it 

may file a separate, revised and/or amended Petition to Enforce, 

as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. . . . 

Id. at 10 n.6 (record citation omitted).

Following this Court’s decision, on October 14, 2019, Hidden Ridge filed 

an amended petition to enforce the Settlement Agreement, asserting Scioto 

breached the terms of the Agreement and requesting damages “appropriate 

to place Hidden Ridge in the position they would have been in if the Settlement 

Agreement was not breached[,]” including striking the quitclaim deed. Hidden 

Ridge’s Motion for Oral Argument & Hearing Date/Amended Petition to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Superior Court Opinion of October 1, 2019, 
J-A25039-22

- 9 -

10/14/19 (Amended Petition to Enforce), at 2, 5-6 (unpaginated).3 Hidden 

Ridge asserted that it had “already presented substantial evidence” and 

developed the record at the two prior evidentiary hearings. Id. at 5 

(unpaginated). However, it asked the court to “schedule argument and/or a 

hearing for purposes of assessing damages as described [in the petition] and 

. . . in the prior hearings, and then enter a final Order on the Petition . . . 

awarding such damages.” Id. at 6 (unpaginated).

On October 29, 2019, the trial court granted Hidden Ridge’s amended 

petition and directed the parties to appear for oral argument on December 17, 

2019. Order, 10/29/19. The court further stated: “Thereafter, a 

determination will be made as to the scheduling of a hearing for purposes of 

entering a Final Order on the Petition to Enforce the Settlement Agreement.” 

Id.

Meanwhile, on December 16th, Scioto filed a memorandum in opposition 

to Hidden Ridge’s amended petition. Scioto argued, inter alia, that “[t]he 

summary procedure and relief proposed by Hidden Ridge [was] inconsistent 

with the procedural posture of this matter, and with Scioto’s substantial 

rights.” Scioto’s Memorandum in Opposition to Hidden Ridge’s Amended 

Petition to Enforce, 12/16/19, at 4. Rather, Scioto insisted the trial court 

conduct a “full adversarial proceeding to determine the parties’ rights under 

the Settlement Agreement,” including several affirmative defenses and 

____________________________________________

3 Hidden Ridge filed a second, identical motion on October 29, 2019.
J-A25039-22

- 10 -

counterclaims Scioto intended to assert. See id. at 4-6. Indeed, Scioto 

maintained that Hidden Ridge was required to file a new breach of contract 

action to obtain relief, rather than pursue its claims via an amended petition 

to enforce.4 See id. at 4-5.

On December 17, 2019, the trial court entered an order which, once 

again, granted Hidden Ridge’s amended petition, and directed Scioto to file a 

reply “setting forth any defenses [it] intend[ed] to raise” within 30 days.” 

Order, 12/17/19, at 1 (unpaginated). The court provided Hidden Ridge with 

30 days to respond, and scheduled a hearing for April 2 and 3, 2020, at which 

time “the parties may offer additional witnesses to supplement the record . . 

. so that this matter may be finally decided” based upon the record from the 

prior two hearings and any supplemental testimony. Id. at 2 (unpaginated).

Scioto filed an answer to Hidden Ridge’s petition, raising several 

affirmative defenses including the statute of limitations, failure to state a 

claim, mutual mistake, impossibility, unclean hands, and setoff,

5 and 

____________________________________________

4 Scioto does not pursue this argument on appeal.

5 Scioto also filed a separate complaint at Docket No. GD 19-017623 (2019 

Action), asserting Hidden Ridge was “inappropriately suspending the voting 

rights maintained by Scioto” — the same argument asserted in its affirmative 

defense of unclean hands. See Trial Ct. Op. at 12; Scioto’s Answer & 

Affirmative Defenses to Hidden Ridge’s Amended Petition to Enforce, 1/16/20, 

at 8-11. That lawsuit was subsequently consolidated with the present matter. 

See Order, 2/19/20. Thereafter, Scioto filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction in the 2019 Action. However, on July 1, 2020, the trial court 

entered an order sustaining preliminary objections filed by Hidden Ridge in 

the 2019 Action, and dismissing Scioto’s complaint. See Order, 7/1/20. 
J-A25039-22

- 11 -

requesting entry of judgment in its favor. See Scioto’s Answer & Affirmative 

Defenses to Hidden Ridge’s Amended Petition to Enforce at 5-13. Hidden 

Ridge filed a motion seeking to strike the defenses filed by Scioto, which the 

trial court denied by order entered July 1, 2020. Order, 7/1/20. The court 

also directed: “The parties may conduct discovery through 8/31/2020; after 

which the parties and the court shall determine the appropriate forum for 

resolution of the matters in this petition, i.e. hearing or argument.” Id.

On January 15, 2021, Hidden Ridge filed a motion for scheduling order. 

It noted that the parties completed discovery per the court’s July 1st order, 

and the “matter [was] in a position to be placed in line for a determination.” 

Hidden Ridge’s Motion for Scheduling Order, 1/15/21 at 2 (unpaginated). 

Further, Hidden Ridge averred that the record had been developed “as a result 

of the prior hearings” and recent depositions, such that the claims could be 

resolved “by way of dispositive motion[;]” it stated that Scioto’s counsel 

agreed “by email [that] some or all of the claims” could be resolved in that 

____________________________________________

Scioto appealed to this Court, which quashed the appeal because the trial 

court did not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, or rule on Scioto’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction. See Scioto v. Hidden Ridge, 806 WDA 2020, 

807 WDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Nov. 20, 2020). 

Subsequently, Scioto requested permission to file an amended 

complaint in the 2019 Action. On March 11, 2021, the trial court granted

Scioto’s request, but stayed “all matters” in the 2019 Action “pending 

resolution” of the present matter. Order, 3/11/21. 
J-A25039-22

- 12 -

manner.6 Id. Less than two weeks later, on January 28, 2021, the trial court 

entered an order granting Hidden Ridge’s motion. Order, 1/28/21. Relevant 

herein, the court directed:

As a record has been developed in this case, the pending Petition 

to Enforce Settlement Agreement as well as the claims of Scioto . 

. . raised in their Answer and Defenses shall be initially considered 

by way of dispositive motion. Either party may file a dispositive 

motion [followed by a response]. Thereafter, if the matter is not 

resolved as a result of the dispositive motion(s), either party may 

file an additional motion requesting a final hearing be scheduled, 

and such a Motion will be considered by the Court at that time.

Id. 

Subsequently, on May 21, 2021, Hidden Ridge filed a dispositive motion 

concerning the issues of liability and damages, and Scioto filed a brief in 

opposition on July 8, 2021. Scioto argued, inter alia, that a hearing was 

required so that it could present its defenses to Hidden Ridge’s breach of 

contract argument, which were not relevant at the time of the contempt and 

sanctions hearings. See Scioto’s Brief in Opposition to Hidden Ridge’s 

Dispositive Motion as to the Issues of Liability & Damages, 7/8/21, at 7-8. 

See also id. at 3 (“The Court must hear testimony, review pertinent 

documentary evidence and solicit arguments on the factual and legal issues 

raised in Scioto’s Answer and New Matter before it can resolve Hidden Ridge’s 

claims.”).

____________________________________________

6 We note that this purported email from Scioto’s counsel is not included in 

the certified record.
J-A25039-22

- 13 -

The trial court declined to conduct a hearing, and just over a week later,

on July 16, 2021, entered the following order:

[U]pon consideration of [Hidden Ridge’s] Dispositive Motion in the 

Nature of Summary Judgment as to the issue of Liability and 

Certain Damages, and any response thereto, it is hereby 

ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.

Judgment is entered in this case against Scioto and in favor 

of [Hidden Ridge] in the amount of $220,874.25 and the Quitclaim 

Deed which Scioto recorded on or about October 13, 2017 . . . is 

hereby ordered to be stricken such that Scioto shall remain 

responsible for the on-going and continued maintenance of the 

subject parcel until such time as Scioto petitions the Court based 

upon the Township agreeing to accept and dedicate the subject 

stormwater facilities.

Order, 7/16/21, at 1-2 (unpaginated). Scioto filed this timely appeal.7

____________________________________________

7 On August 9, 2021, the trial court ordered Scioto to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Scioto complied and 

filed its concise statement on August 30, 2021. The trial court then filed a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on November 8, 2021.

We note that on October 7, 2021, this Court issued Scioto a rule show 

cause why the appeal should not be quashed. See Show Cause Order, 

10/7/21. We observed that the trial court’s July 16th order granted summary 

judgment as to only “certain damages” and the trial court later entered an 

order on this docket granting an injunction. See id. at 1 (unpaginated). 

Scioto replied to the show cause order explaining: (1) although the court 

purported to award “certain damages,” it, in fact, awarded all relief requested 

by Hidden Ridge; and (2) the injunction issued on September 21, 2021, 

related to the separate 2019 action filed by Scioto at Docket No. GD 19-

017623. See Scioto’s Response to Rule to Show Cause, 10/20/21, at 1-3. 

Scioto explained that the 2019 Action was stayed pending resolution of this 

action, which originated in 2008. Id. at 1. After this matter was resolved via

the court’s July 16th order, Scioto filed a motion for a preliminary injunction 

in the 2019 Action. Id. Because these matters were consolidated, the court 

entered an order granting the injunction under both docket numbers. Id. 

However, Scioto insisted that the injunction relates only to the 2019 Action, 
J-A25039-22

- 14 -

Scioto presents the following six issues for our review:

I. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, entering 

summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact 

remained in dispute[?]

II. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, entering 

summary judgment without holding a trial or evidentiary 

proceeding on (or addressing) Scioto’s affirmative 

defenses[?]

III. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, allowing 

Hidden Ridge to pursue a cause of action for breach of 

contract more than four years after Hidden Ridge alleges the 

breach occurred[?]

IV. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, awarding 

damages unsupported by — and in fact contrary to — the 

evidence[?]

V. Whether, after this Court reversed and vacated the [trial] 

court’s contempt order and awards, the [trial] court erred 

as a matter of law or abused its discretion by contradicting 

in dramatic fashion its previous findings and conclusions 

regarding the proper remedy to place the parties where they 

would have been had the contract been capable of 

performance[?]

VI. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law entering 

summary judgment against Scioto for breach of contract 

notwithstanding contract language that is unambiguous or, 

alternatively, is ambiguous but without hearing evidence 

bearing on the parties’ intent[?]

Scioto’s Brief at 3 (some capitalization removed).

____________________________________________

and “[t]here are no issues remaining in the 2008 Action, from which the 

instant appeal is taken[.]” Id. at 4-5. Following Scioto’s response, this Court 

discharged the show cause order. See Order, 10/7/21. Upon our review, we 

agree the trial court’s July 16, 2021, order is final and appealable as to the 

action commenced in 2008.

 
J-A25039-22

- 15 -

Scioto’s first two claims focus on the trial court’s failure to conduct a 

hearing following Hidden Ridge’s amended petition to enforce the Settlement 

Agreement, and Scioto’s response. In its first issue, Scioto argues that Hidden 

Ridge’s “Dispositive Motion” was, essentially, a motion for summary 

judgment, which “attempted to resolve . . . numerous factual disputes 

presented by the evidence[.]” Scioto’s Brief at 33. However, it maintains that 

genuine issues of material fact remain, which preclude the entry of summary 

judgment. See id. at 39. Similarly, in its second issue, Scioto contends the 

trial court improperly entered judgment without permitting Scioto the 

opportunity to present evidence on its “fact-laden affirmative defenses[.]” Id.

at 42. Nor, as it further claims, did the court address any of the proposed 

defenses in the order granting Hidden Ridge’s motion, or Rule 1925(a) 

opinion. See id. Because we agree the trial court erred by entering judgment 

in favor of Hidden Ridge without permitting Scioto the opportunity to present 

evidence of its proposed defenses, we are constrained to vacate the order on 

appeal, and remand for further proceedings. 

Preliminarily, we note that despite the summary nature of this 

proceeding — including the trial court’s own designation of its order as 

granting Hidden Ridge’s “Dispositive Motion in the Nature of Summary 

Judgment”

8 — we do not view this matter as an appeal from an order granting 

summary judgment pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2. 

____________________________________________

8 See Order, 7/16/21, at 1 (unpaginated).
J-A25039-22

- 16 -

Rather, our review of a trial court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement 

is well-settled:

When reviewing a trial court’s decision to enforce a settlement 

agreement, our scope of review is plenary as to questions of law, 

and we are free to draw our own inferences and reach our own 

conclusions from the facts as found by the court. However, we 

are only bound by the trial court’s findings of fact which are 

supported by competent evidence. The prevailing party is entitled 

to have the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to its 

position. Thus, we will only overturn the trial court’s decision 

when the factual findings of the court are against the weight of 

the evidence or its legal conclusions are erroneous.

Salsman v. Brown, 51 A.3d 892, 893–94 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation 

omitted).

Here, however, based upon the undeveloped record and the trial court’s 

summary opinion,9 we are unable to determine whether the court’s factual 

findings are supported by competent evidence. Although we recognize the 

trial court relied upon the testimony presented at both the April 11, 2018, 

contempt hearing, and July 25, 2018, sanctions hearing, neither of these 

proceedings focused on the critical issue raised here — whether Scioto 

____________________________________________

9 Although the trial court’s opinion is 21 pages, the court devoted the first 

seven pages to rehash the contempt proceeding in detail, criticize this Court’s 

2019 decision vacating the contempt order, and express its frustration that 

“[t]here have been no consequences imposed for Scioto’s thirteen (13) years 

of failures in completing the Hidden Ridge Condominium projects; at least 

none approved by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.” See Trial Ct. Op. at 

1-7. The next nine pages recount the lengthy procedural history of this 

matter. See id. at 7-16. In fact, the trial court declined to address the 13 

issues Scioto presented in its Rule 1925(b) statement because it concluded 

they were “extraneous, repetitive, and in instances, disingenuous.” Id. at 19 

(footnote omitted). 
J-A25039-22

- 17 -

breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement (as opposed to the court’s 

February 2015 order), and if so, whether Scioto can establish a defense to 

excuse its breach. We recognize that the trial court was attempting to 

streamline this dispute, which has, admittedly, been languishing in the courts

for far too long. However, in doing so, the court precluded Scioto from having 

the opportunity to prove its affirmative defenses. No matter how wellintentioned the trial court may be, this Court cannot countenance the 

deprivation of due process rights.

Furthermore, to the extent the trial court determined it could dispose of 

the claims on the record before it, its failure to detail any factual findings in 

either its July 16th order or Rule 1925 opinion undermines our ability to 

determine if its factual findings are supported by the record. In fact, the trial 

court’s substantive discussion of Scioto’s claims consists of the following:

[T]he parties entered into a valid, written Settlement Agreement 

in which the parties bargained in exchange for consideration; 

specifically, Scioto was to accommodate Hidden Ridge’s valid 

complaints of water retention problems due to inadequate 

construction in exchange for a release from litigation by Hidden 

Ridge. The objective was to place the parties in the same position 

they would have enjoyed if the Settle[ment] Agreement had been 

adhered to.

After reliable testimony delivered by competent and 

comparable experts; that testimony and evidence assessed by this 

[c]ourt, and it was determined that the total damages necessary 

to compensate Hidden Ridge for Scioto’s failure to complete the 

water retention plan in compliance with Township code pursuant 

to the parties[’] 2012 Agreement and Release was $220,874.25. 

* * *
J-A25039-22

- 18 -

The trial court was tasked with determining an amount of

damages that would make Hidden Ridge whole, i.e., by restoring 

them to the same financial position they would have enjoyed 

pursuant to the parties’ own intentions as evidenced by the 

Settlement Agreement. This [c]ourt’s award did not include 

maintenance costs of the pond into perpetuality or dedications 

that have been deemed impossible. . . . or any other of the 

errantly supplied justifications for the award by Scioto. The [t]rial 

[c]ourt simply determined that it would take $220,874.25 to do 

what Scioto legally obligated themselves to do to resolve this 

litigation.

Trial Ct. Op. at 20-21 (footnote omitted).

In particular, we note that the trial court did not specify how it arrived 

at the damages award of $220,874.25. See Trial Ct. Op. at 15-16, 20. While 

Hidden Ridge insists the evidence presented at the July 25th sanctions hearing 

supports the court’s award, we note that following that hearing, the trial court 

initially sanctioned Scioto only $39,283.05. See Hidden Ridge’s Brief at 49; 

Order, 8/1/15. An explanation about how the trial court arrived at a figure 

roughly $180,000 more than the original award would be helpful on appeal. 

Even more confusing is the issue of the quitclaim deed. In its July 16th

order, the trial court directed that the deed be stricken “such that Scioto shall 

remain responsible for the on-going and continued maintenance of the subject 

parcel until such time as Scioto petitions the Court based on the Township 

agreeing to accept and dedicate the subject stormwater facilities.” 

Order, 7/16/21, at 1-2 (unpaginated) (emphasis added). However, in its 

opinion, the court declined to address the quitclaim issue. Trial Ct. Op. at 19 

(footnote omitted). Moreover, the trial court insisted that its damages award 

“did not include maintenance costs of the pond into perpetuity or dedications 
J-A25039-22

- 19 -

that have been deemed impossible[.]” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). It further 

noted: “Any ‘adoption’ of the water retention system by South Park was . . .

ruled an impossibility and inoperable[.]” Id. at 20 n.10. This appears to 

contradict the court’s order directing Scioto to maintain the pond until it is 

dedicated to and accepted by the Township — which the court recognizes is 

an “impossibility.” Id.

Accordingly, at this juncture, we are constrained to vacate the judgment 

in favor of Hidden Ridge and remand for further proceedings. Because of our 

disposition, we need not address Scioto’s remaining claims, which all relate to 

the evidence, or lack thereof, supporting the trial court’s ruling. See Scioto’s 

Brief at 43 (trial court ignored statute of limitations defense); 44 (damages 

award was not supported by evidence); 48 (trial court contradicted its prior 

evidentiary findings after this Court’s reversal of contempt order); 52 

(settlement agreement either did not require, or was ambiguous, as to 

whether Township had to accept dedication of stormwater detention facility). 

We emphasize that our ruling does not require a hearing on matters addressed 

at the prior hearings. Rather, the trial court may limit any new hearing to 

evidence and testimony not previously presented.

Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Judge Nichols joins this memorandum.

Judge Kunselman files a dissenting memorandum.
J-A25039-22

- 20 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/9/2023