Court Opinion

ID: 9899387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 17:11:09.572734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:22.957966
License: Public Domain

J-A20039-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  ROCCO CRESCENZO                              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  GENERATIONS OF HOPE, LLC.                    :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 57 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
                             2022-SU-002074

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                      FILED: NOVEMBER 16, 2023

       Appellant, Generations of Hope, LLC, appeals from the December 12,

2022 order, amended on December 20, 2022, overruling its preliminary

objections; granting the petition for declaratory judgment filed by Appellee,

Rocco Crescenzo; and directing the York County Prothonotary to mark the

judgment entered in favor of Appellant and against Appellee as satisfied. After

careful review, we affirm.

       The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of

this case as follows:

              [Appellee] initiated this action by petition for
              declaratory judgment filed on August 30, 2022. In
              response to the petition, on September 6, 2022, the
              [trial] court issued a Rule to Show Cause, which
              directed [Appellant] to file an answer to the petition
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A20039-23

            within 20 days, provided for discovery, directed the
            matter to be disposed of according to Pa.R.C.P. 206.7,
            and lastly, scheduled oral argument for December 12,
            2022. On September 26, 2022, [Appellant] filed
            preliminary objections to [Appellee’s] petition.
            [Appellant’s] first objection was based on res
            judicata, the second was based on collateral
            estoppel, and the third was based on a claim of lack
            of jurisdiction based on the two previous issues.

            As required by the local rules, 10 days later, on
            October 6, 2022, [Appellant] filed a brief in support of
            its preliminary objections. On October 17, 2022,
            [Appellee] filed an answer to the preliminary
            objections and brief in opposition. On November 3,
            2022, [Appellant] filed a reply brief and praecipe for
            one judge disposition. At no point did [Appellant] file
            an answer to the original petition as they were
            directed to do by the Rule[] to Show Cause.

            Despite the [trial] court’s Rule to Show Cause and
            through       administrative     error,   [Appellant’s]
            preliminary objections were assigned to the Honorable
            Todd R. Platts for disposition. On December 12, 2022,
            the [trial] court held oral argument on the petition as
            was ordered in the Rule to Show Cause. [Appellee]
            appeared through counsel, but [Appellant] failed to
            appear for oral argument as directed and without
            explanation.      The [trial] court entertained oral
            argument from [Appellee’s] counsel, and afterwards
            overruled [Appellant’s] preliminary objections and
            granted relief sought by [Appellee].

            [Appellant] sought reconsideration, which was denied
            [on December 20, 2022]. On January 9, 2023,
            [Appellant] filed its notice of appeal.

Trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 2/2/23 at 1-2 (footnote and extraneous

capitalization omitted).

      On January 10, 2023, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.

                                     -2-
J-A20039-23

1925(b). Appellant filed its timely Rule 1925(b) statement on January 31,

2023. On February 2, 2023, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

      Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

            A.    Did the Trial Court commit legal error in issuing
                  a Rule to Show Cause and granting relief under
                  petition practice when the Trial Court did not
                  have jurisdiction over a Declaratory Judgment
                  Action commenced as a petition?

            B.    Did the Trial Court commit legal error in
                  entering    a   procedural    default against
                  [Appellant] when jurisdiction was never
                  established over [Appellant]?

            C.    Did the Trial Court commit legal error in failing
                  to deny and dismiss the Petition on the ground
                  of res judicata?

            D.    Did the Trial Court commit legal error in finding
                  that [Appellee] had statutory standing to bring
                  a Declaratory Judgment Action?

            E.    Did The Trial Court commit legal error in
                  granting relief by disregarding the Preliminary
                  Objections entirely, not allowing an opportunity
                  for an Answer and failing to recognize that the
                  Petition failed to state a claim upon which relief
                  can be granted?

            F.    Did the Trial Court commit legal error by
                  depriving [Appellant] of due process in granting
                  the Petition without providing an opportunity to
                  be heard and abusing its discretion by granting
                  the relief requested in the Petition?

Appellant’s brief at 3-4.

      “Our standard of review of an order of the trial court overruling …

preliminary objections is to determine whether the trial court committed an

                                     -3-
J-A20039-23

error of law. When considering the appropriateness of a ruling on preliminary

objections, the appellate court must apply the same standard as the trial

court.     Bargo v. Kuhns, 98 A.3d 686, 689 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation

omitted).

         Likewise, “[i]n reviewing a declaratory judgment action, we are limited

to determining whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or

committed an error of law.” Kline v. Travelers Personal Security Ins. Co.,

223 A.3d 677, 684 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 237

A.3d 388 (Pa. 2020).

              We may not substitute our judgment for that of the
              trial court if the court’s determination is supported by
              the evidence. Additionally, [w]e will review the
              decision of the lower court as we would a decree in
              equity and set aside the factual conclusions of that
              court only where they are not supported by adequate
              evidence. The application of the law, however, is
              always subject to our review.

Erie Ins. Group v. Catania, 95 A.3d 320, 322 (Pa.Super. 2014) (internal

citations omitted), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2014).

         For the ease of our discussion, we have elected to address some of

Appellant’s claims concurrently.

                                      A. & B.

         Appellant first argues that the trial court erred by “issuing a Rule to

Show Cause and granting relief under petition practice because the court did

not have jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action commenced as a

petition.” Appellant’s brief at 20. Appellant also contends that the trial court

                                       -4-
J-A20039-23

lacked personal jurisdiction over it because was not properly served with

Appellee’s petition. Id. at 25.

      Upon review, we observe that Appellant has waived its first two claims

by failing to specifically raise them in its September 26, 2022 preliminary

objections nor in any responsive pleading.     See “Preliminary Objections to

Petition for Declaratory Judgment,” 9/26/22 at 6-10. As noted, Appellant also

failed to appear at the December 12, 2022 hearing to raise these objections.

      Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 302 provides that “[i]ssues

not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time

on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1032 (stating, that with few

exceptions, a “party waives all defenses and objections which are not

presented either by preliminary objection, answer or reply”).      Accordingly,

Appellant has waived Issues A & B.

                                      C.

      Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss

Appellee’s petition for declaratory judgment pursuant to the doctrine of res

judicata. Appellant’s brief at 28.

      “Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a final

judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction will bar any future

action on the same cause of action between the parties and their privies.”

Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265, 286 (Pa.Super.

2016) (citation omitted). “Res judicata prohibits parties involved in prior,

                                     -5-
J-A20039-23

concluded litigation from subsequently asserting claims in a later action that

were raised, or could have been raised, in the previous adjudication. Thus, a

party must raise all matters related to an issue at first opportunity or be

forever barred from raising them again.”      Khalil v. Travelers Indemnity

Company of America, 273 A.3d 1211, 1223-1224 (Pa.Super. 2022)

(citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted), appeal denied,

288 A.3d 487 (Pa. 2022).

      Instantly, the trial court overruled Appellant’s preliminary objection

raising the doctrine res judicata on the basis that it is an affirmative defense

that should be pleaded as a new matter. See trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion,

2/2/23 at 4.

      Upon review, we agree with the trial court’s assessment.        It is well-

settled in this Commonwealth that “unless the complaint sets forth in detail,

either directly or by reference, the essential facts and issues pleaded by the

prior suit,” which is not the case here, “the affirmative defense of res judicata

must be raised in a responsive pleading under the heading of new matter and

not by preliminary objection.” Perelman v. Perelman, 125 A.3d 1259, 1266

n.3 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 141 A.3d 435 (Pa.

2016); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1030(a).

      Based on the foregoing, Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in

failing to dismiss Appellee’s petition for declaratory judgment under the

doctrine of res judicata is without merit.

                                      -6-
J-A20039-23

                                      D.

      Appellant next argues that the trial court erred “in finding that

[Appellee] had statutory standing to bring a declaratory judgment action[.]”

Appellant’s brief at 34. In support of this contention, Appellant avers that

Appellee failed to demonstrate that there was an actual controversy between

the parties sufficient to invoke the Declaratory Judgments Act. Id. at 35-36.

      In the Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7531-7541, the

General Assembly vested in courts the “power to declare rights, status, and

other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 7532. Significantly, the Legislature provided that the Declaratory

Judgments Act is “remedial,” and “its purpose is to settle and to afford relief

from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal

relations, and is to be liberally construed and administered.” Id. at § 7541(a).

      “In order to sustain an action under the Declaratory Judgments Act, a

plaintiff must allege an interest which is direct, substantial and immediate,

and must demonstrate the existence of a real or actual controversy, as the

courts of this Commonwealth are generally proscribed from rendering

decisions in the abstract or issuing purely advisory opinions.”        Firearm

Owners Against Crime v. Papenfuse, 261 A.3d 467, 482 (Pa. 2021)

(citation and brackets omitted).

      Here, the record belies Appellant’s claim that Appellee failed to plead

“an actual controversy.” Appellant’s brief at 35. On the contrary, Appellee’s

                                     -7-
J-A20039-23

August 30, 2022 petition clearly sets forth the controversy he seeks to

resolve; namely, whether Appellee has been given proper credit toward the

judgment entered against him from the sale of properties he owned.          See

“Petition for Declaratory Judgment,” 8/30/22 at ¶¶ 18-24; see also trial court

opinion, 2/2/23 at 5. Accordingly, we discern no error on the part of the trial

court in overruling Appellant’s preliminary objection in this matter.

                                    E. & F.

      Lastly, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by disregarding its

preliminary objections in their entirety and in not allowing it to file an answer

to Appellee’s petition for declaratory judgment.       Appellant’s brief at 36.

Appellant further maintains that the trial court violated its due process rights

by granting Appellee’s petition without affording it an opportunity to be heard.

Id. at 44.

      Following a thorough review of the record, including the briefs of the

parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it

is our determination that Appellant’s Issues E & F warrant no relief.

Accordingly, we agree with and adopt the following analysis of the trial court

as our own for purposes of appellate review of these claims:

             We issued a Rule to Show Cause upon [Appellant]
             which directed: 1) it be served with a copy of the
             order; 2) it file an answer to the petition; 3) the
             opportunity for discovery; 4) how the petition would
             be decided; and 5) scheduled oral argument on the
             petition.   [Appellant] filed an inappropriate
             response to the petition, but in doing so clearly
             indicated they had notice of the filing of the

                                      -8-
J-A20039-23

           petition.     We provided [Appellant] the
           opportunity to be heard and defend themselves,
           both by way of answer and oral argument. The
           sad reality is that [Appellant] failed to file an
           answer as they were directed to do and further,
           failed to appear for oral argument.

           In defense of its failure to appear for oral argument,
           [Appellant] claims they contacted Judge Platts’
           chambers, who stated no proceeding was schedule[d]
           for December 12, 2022. It was true that Judge Platts
           did not schedule anything in this matter for December
           12, 2022. However, Judge Platts did not issue the
           scheduling order, the undersigned did. [Appellant]
           never contacted, nor do they claim to have contacted,
           the chambers of the undersigned regarding whether
           oral argument scheduled for December 12th was being
           held. What [Appellant] did is the equivalent of calling
           its eye doctor [to] find out if it had a dentist
           appointment scheduled.          It makes no sense
           whatsoever and was certainly not a ‘breakdown in the
           judicial process’ as they claim.

           Without a doubt, [Appellant] was provided all the
           guarantees due process requires. [Appellant] was
           given notice, the opportunity to file a written
           answer, and the opportunity to appear in court
           for oral argument.          It failed to take full
           advantage of the opportunities it was given, no
           doubt, but due process requires the opportunity
           be provided and no more. [Appellant’s] failure to
           take advantage of opportunity provided to it was not
           an error of the part of the [trial] court.

Trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 2/2/23 at 6-7 (emphasis added).

     For all the forgoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s December 12,

2022 order, amended on December 20, 2022.

     Order affirmed.

                                    -9-
J-A20039-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/16/2023

                           - 10 -