J

### -A02028-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIOR COURT 

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 MONA LISA BROWN

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. TIAN XIAO ZHANG 

### Appellant No. 1399 EDA 2016 Appeal 

### from theJudgment Entered May 6, 2016 in 

### the Courtof Common Pleas 

### of Philadelphia County Civil Division 

### at No(s): OctoberTerm, 2013 No. 00857
BEFORE: OTT, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: 

### FILED MAY

### 08, 2017 Appellant, Tian Xiao Zhang, appeals

### from the

### judgmententered May 6, 2016. At issue in 

### this appeal is the 

### trial court's denial of

### Appellant's motion to dismiss

### for lack

### ofsubject 

### matterjurisdiction. We 

### affirm. Appellee, Mona Lisa Brown, 

### instituted a negligence action on April 17, 2014, 

### following a slip and fall 

### at a 

### property owned by 

### Appellant. 

### See Complaint, 

### 4/17/2014, at 

### III 1-18. 

### Appellant represented 

### himself pro se and prevailed at 

### arbitration. See Answer to 

### Complaint, 

### 4/24/14, at

### III 1-6; Report and Award 

### of 

### Arbitrators, 7/22/14. Appellee 

### timely appealed the 

### arbitrators' award, and the 

### matter proceeded to 

### trial by

### jury. See Notice 

### of Appeal 

### from Award, 

### 7/24/14. On April 14, 2015, the

### jury entered a

### verdict of

### $175,000.00 in 

### favor ofAppellee and 

### againstAppellant. SeeJuryVerdict

* FormerJusticespecially assigned to 

### the SuperiorCourt.J

### -A02028-17
for Plaintiff, 

### 4/14/15, at 1-2. At no 

### time during the proceedings did 

### Appellantaver

### that his wifewas a 

### co-ownerofthe Property. 

### Appellant, now represented by counsel, 

### untimely filed a 

### motion 

### for post

### -trial relief. 

### See Motion 

### for Post Trial Relief, 

### 7/15/15, at 

### 1-12. The 

### motion did not 

### aver 

### that Appellant's wife was a 

### co-owner of the 

### property. The 

### trial court dismissed 

### Appellant's motion as 

### untimely. Appellant 

### timely appealed, but his appeal was dismissed 

### for failure to 

### comply with Pa.R.A.P. 3517. 

### See Order, 

### 9/14/15, 2109 EDA 2015. On November 30, 2015, Appellant filed a 

### motion seeking to dismiss Appellee's 

### complaint for lack 

### of 

### subject 

### matterjurisdiction. See Motion to Dismiss, 

### 11/30/15, at 

### III 1-10. The 

### motion averred 

### that the 

### trial court lacked 

### subject 

### matter jurisdiction, as Appellee had failed to 

### join an indispensable party. According to 

### Appellant, his wife was a 

### co-owner ofthe Proeprty and had not been named as a 

### defendant. 

### Id. Appellee filed an answer in 

### opposition. The

### trial court denied 

### Appellant's motion. On May 5, 2016, 

### Appellant 

### timely appealed the denial of his 

### motion.' Appellant filed a 

### court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b) statement, and the 

### trial court issued a responsiveopinion.


### ' On May 6, 2016,Appelleefiled a praecipe to 

### enter

### judgment on the

### verdict and 

### judgment was entered 

### that same day. As such, the appeal has been perfected and is 

### properly before this Court. 

### See

### generally,Johnstonthe 

### Florist, Inc. v. 

### Tedco 

### Constr. Corp., 657 A.2d 511, 513 (Pa. Super. 1995) (en banc) (holding 

### thatjurisdiction in this Court may be perfected 

### after an appeal notice has been filed upon the docketing of a final

### judgment). 

## -2J

### -A02028-17

On appeal, 

### Appellant raises a single question 

### forour review: Whether a 

### trial court lacks 

### subject 

### matter jurisdiction to 

### entertain a personal 

### injury action alleging an unsafe 

### condition of 

### property, whenthe record owners 

### ofthe 

### property are not named asdefendants? 

### Appellant's Briefat 1-2. 

### Appellant argues

### that the initial action was 

### improperly brought against Appellant 

### individually and not 

### against the 

### joint owners of the 

### property as required by Pennsylvania law. 

### SeeAppellant's Briefat 4. As Appellee failed to 

### join an indispensable 

### party, the 

### court lacked 

### subject 

### matterjurisdiction, and the action should be dismissed, as the 

### verdict and 

### judgment are 

### nullities. 

### Id. It iswell settled 

### that the 

### failure to

### join an indispensable 

### party is a nonwaivable defect 

### that implicates the 

### trial court's subject 

### matterjurisdiction. 

### Sabella v. 

### Appalachian Dev. 

### Corp., 103 A.3d 83, 90 (Pa. Super. 

### 2014). In 

### examining 

### whether a 

### party is indispensable, courts may consider the following 

### criteria: 1) 

### whether absent parties have a 

### right or 

### interest related to the claim; 2) the nature of the 

### right or 

### interest; 3) 

### whether the 

### right or 

### interest is essential to the 

### merits ofthe issue; and 4) 

### whetherjustice may be afforded 

### without violating the due process 

### rights of absent parties. 

### See 

### MechanicsburgArea Sch. 

### Dist. v. 

### Kline, 431 A.2d 953, 956 (Pa. 

### 1981). 

### If no redress is 

### sought against a 

### party, then its 

### rights would not be prejudiced and 

### accordingly, it is not essential. 

### See 

### Grimme Combustion, 

### Inc., 595 A.2d 77, 81 (Pa. Super. 1991). 

## -3J

### -A02028-17
Here, the 

### trial court noted 

### thatthe

### judgmentwas in 

### personam and not in 

### rem. See, 

### generally, 

### Insilco Corp. v. 

### Rayburn, 543 A.2d 120, 123- 124 

### (noting the differences between an in 

### rem

### judgment against a 

### property and an in 

### personam

### judgmentagainst individuals). The

### trial courtconcluded 

### that, as

### Appellantcannotexecute

### judgment against 

### property held by

### tenants in the 

### entireties, or any 

### other property owned by Ms. Zhang, she will not be 

### adversely affected by the

### judgment. Thus, Ms. Zhang's rights and 

### interest in 

### this case did not rise to the level to make her an indispensable party. 

### See 

### Kline, 431 A.2d at 

### 956; 

### Grimme, 595 A.2d at 81. We see no 

### error in this conclusion, and 

### accordingly,

### affirm. Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered.

J seph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary
Date: 

### 5/8/2017



## -4