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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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 the Judgment Entered May 6, 2016 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Civil Division at No(s): October Term, 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 judgment entered May 6, 

2016. At issue in this appeal is the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion 

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 of Appellee and against Appellant. See Jury Verdict 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 
J -A02028-17 

for Plaintiff, 4/14/15, at 1-2. At no time during the proceedings did 

Appellant aver that his wife was a co-owner of the 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 matter jurisdiction. 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 of the 

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 responsive opinion. 

' On May 6, 2016, Appellee filed 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, Johnston the 

Florist, Inc. v. Tedco Constr. Corp., 657 A.2d 511, 513 (Pa. Super. 1995) 

(en banc) (holding that jurisdiction in this Court may be perfected after an 

appeal notice has been filed upon the docketing of a final judgment). 

-2 
J -A02028-17 

On appeal, Appellant raises a single question for our review: 

Whether a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to 

entertain a personal injury action alleging an unsafe condition of 

property, when the record owners of the property are not named 

as defendants? 

Appellant's Brief at 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. See Appellant's Brief at 4. As Appellee failed 

to join an indispensable party, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, 

and the action should be dismissed, as the verdict and judgment are 

nullities. Id. 

It is well settled that the failure to join an indispensable party is a nonwaivable defect that implicates the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. 

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 of the issue; and 4) whether justice may 

be afforded without violating the due process rights of absent parties. See 

Mechanicsburg Area 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). 

-3 
J -A02028-17 

Here, the trial court noted that the judgment was 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 judgment against individuals). The trial court concluded 

that, as Appellant cannot execute 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