Opinion ID: 3010232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Barbara Cinea

Text: Barbara Cinea, a welfare recipient who lived with her eightyear-old son in Pittsburgh, fell behind on her rent payments when her welfare benefits were temporarily suspended. In a proceeding before a district justice, Cinea's landlord, Robert Cox, obtained a judgment against her for rent due and for possession of the property she occupied. On March 3, 1992, in accordance with that judgment, Cinea was served with an eviction notice. Although the eviction was not to take effect until March 5, Cinea and her son fled hurriedly on March 4 in response to threats by the landlord, leaving behind all of their belongings. The following day, a constable posted a notice on the door stating that the locks had been changed and instructing Cinea to make arrangements with her landlord within thirty days of the date of the notice in order to retrieve her possessions. On March 16, 1992, before the thirty-day period had expired, Constable Daniel Certo, a defendant in this action, entered the house and levied on Cinea's property pursuant to a writ of execution issued by a district justice. The levy, which was intended to satisfy the money judgment in the landlord-tenant action, covered ANY AND ALL PROPERTY BELONGING TO DEFENDANT AT ADDRESS. Although Constable Certo could have taken the levied property into his physical possession, he left it, as is customary, in Cinea's former residence subject to the terms of 3 the levy. He then served Cinea at her mother's house with notice of the levy and execution. The Notice of Levy stated: YOU WILL THEREFORE NOT REMOVE THIS PROPERTY FROM THE PREMISES WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM ME. Because certain pieces of the furniture that was levied upon belonged to Cinea's mother, her mother filed a property claim to recover them. Following a hearing, a district justice ordered the release of Cinea's mother's property on March 19. Pursuant to Pennsylvania rules for levy and execution proceedings, the landlord filed a timely objection in the state court of common pleas. Meanwhile, for reasons that are unclear from the record, Cinea's mother did not receive her property. The court scheduled the hearing on the landlord's appeal for September 15, 1992-- nearly six months after the district justice's order in Cinea's mother's favor. Cinea herself also filed an objection to the levy, arguing that the value of the property seized far exceeded the amount of the underlying money judgment ($795) and that the levy was improper in that it included personal, unsalable items. What happened next is not clear from the record. It appears, however, that Cinea prevailed at least in part, and that the district justice ordered the release of much of the property that had been subject to the levy. Letter Order of District Justice Connery (March 30, 1992).0 Ultimately, after filing the instant action, 0 Cinea testified before the district court that the district justice didn't do anything with respect to Cinea's objection, and that Cinea appealed. Tr. 126. Cinea argues on appeal, however, that the district justice ruled in her favor. 4 Cinea settled with her landlord and recovered all of her property. The landlord released Cinea's mother's property upon settlement as well.