Court Opinion

ID: 9881086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 17:09:36.872744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:02.575739
License: Public Domain

J-A15020-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  TIMOTHY W. MOCK AND TRACY A.                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MOCK                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                       Appellants              :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1205 WDA 2022
  ROBERT D. ADAMS AND KAREN J.                 :
  ADAMS, RICHARD CAMPBELL, ESQ.                :
  AND CAMPBELL, MILLER, WILLIAMS,              :
  BENSON, ETTER & CONSIGLIO, INC.,             :
  F/K/A MILLER, KISTLER, CAMPBELL,             :
  MILLER, WILLIAMS & BENSON, INC.              :

            Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 6, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County Civil Division at No(s):
                               2011-00665

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                      FILED: September 29, 2023

       Timothy W. Mock and Tracy A. Mock appeal from the order granting

summary judgment in favor of Robert D. Adams; Karen J. Adams; Richard

Campbell, Esq.; and Campbell, Miller, Williams, Benson, Etter & Consiglio,

Inc., F/K/A Miller, Kistler, Campbell, Miller, Williams & Benson, Inc.

(collectively, “the Defendants”). We affirm.

       In 2003, the Adamses entered into an agreement to purchase a business

(Mr. Spouting, Inc.) from the Mocks. The Adamses failed to make the requisite

installment payments, and as a result, the Mocks obtained confessed

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15020-23

judgments against them in October 2006 ($177,765.28) and March 2007

($214,203.79).

       The Mocks and Adamses entered into a second agreement (“the

Agreement”) in June 2007. According to the Agreement, the Adamses would

transfer the business back to the Mocks. The Agreement also provided that

the Adamses would assume tax liability for the business during the years they

owned it and “shall ensure that all employment and employee taxes or other

taxes attributable to operation of business of Mr. Spouting, Inc. are paid to

date. In connection therewith, [the Adamses] agree[d] to indemnify, defend,

and hold harmless [the Mocks], their heirs, executors, administrators,

successors, and assigns in connection therewith.” Compl., 11/4/11, at Ex. A,

Agreement, 6/20/07, at ¶¶ 3, 8. In exchange, the Agreement provided the

Mocks would mark the confessed judgments against the Adamses as satisfied:

“Upon completion by [the Adamses] of all duties and responsibilities under

this Agreement, [the Mocks] shall mark the judgments entered against [the

Adamses] . . . satisfied, settled and discontinued with prejudice[.]” Id. at ¶

13.1

       The Mocks later inquired whether the Adamses had paid any outstanding

taxes for the years they owned the business. The Adamses’ attorney,

Campbell, assured the Mocks that the Adamses had satisfied their tax

____________________________________________

1 The Agreement also stated that the previous 2003 agreement was void and

that the parties agreed to release each other from any claims arising
therefrom. Agreement at ¶¶ 9, 15.

                                           -2-
J-A15020-23

obligations under the contract. The Mocks marked the confessed judgments

as satisfied.

      In 2011, the Mocks initiated the instant litigation by filing a complaint

against the Defendants. They asserted that they had been notified by the IRS

that there were unpaid federal taxes outstanding from the years the Adamses

had owned the business and the Adamses materially breached the 2007

agreement by failing to pay the taxes. They also claimed that Campbell’s

misrepresentations had induced them to mark the confessed judgments as

satisfied. They brought claims of (I) breach of contract, against the Adamses;

(II) promissory estoppel, against Campbell; (III) negligent misrepresentation,

against Campbell; and (IV) vicarious liability, against Campbell’s law firm. In

Paragraph 26 of the complaint, they claimed the following damages:

      a. Damages in satisfying the aforesaid judgments and foregoing
      collection thereupon which were entered in their favor and against
      Defendants Adams in the Beford County Court of Common Pleas;

      b. Loss of anticipated profits, earnings, dividends, or other
      monetary benefit as shareholders in the aforesaid corporation as
      a result of taxes alleged to be due and payable to the IRS by the
      corporation, which losses are ongoing in nature;

      c. Attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in having to defend
      and/or address the claims of the IRS and in having to file this
      litigation.

Compl. at ¶ 26(a)-(c).

      The Adamses filed an answer and new matter. They asserted that in

2007, to comply with the Agreement, they entered a payment arrangement

with the IRS for the outstanding taxes and transferred the liability to their

                                     -3-
J-A15020-23

individual social security numbers. They claimed that the business is not the

obligor on the outstanding taxes, which they would continue to pay, and that

they had not failed to indemnify the Mocks from tax liability pursuant to the

Agreement.

     Following discovery, each party moved for summary judgment or partial

summary judgment. In relevant part, the Adamses asserted that they had

finished paying the outstanding taxes and had obtained a Certificate of

Release from the IRS. Campbell offered the expert opinion of a CPA, who

opined that the tax obligations had been satisfied and the Mocks and Mr.

Spouting, Inc. had no tax liability for the years the business was owned by

the Adamses. The court denied the motions.

     Just over a year later, on the eve of trial, the Adamses filed a motion

for reconsideration of the order denying their motion for summary judgment.

They argued, in relevant part, that the Mocks had “failed to demonstrate any

harm or loss as a result of an alleged breach of contract.” The Adamses’ Mot.

for Reconsideration of the Mot. for Summary Judgment, 11/9/20, at ¶ 3. The

next day, on the morning of trial, the Mocks’ counsel informed the trial court

in camera that the Mocks would not be pursuing damages based on any

outstanding tax liability. They conceded they could not present evidence of

damages on this issue. See Trial Court Memorandum Opinion, 7/6/21, at 1, 7

n.5; N.T., 1/12/21, at 21-23.

     The parties agreed the court should continue trial and reconsider its

denial of summary judgment. While argument was pending, Campbell filed a

                                    -4-
J-A15020-23

second motion for summary judgment, and the Mocks countered with a motion

for reconsideration. At argument, the Mocks’ counsel confirmed that the Mocks

would only be pursuing damages for foregoing collection of the confessed

judgments, and not presenting any evidence of damages due to unpaid tax

obligations or attorneys’ fees. N.T. at 16-19, 22-23.

       After   argument,     the    court      granted   partial   summary   judgment,

dismissing the Mocks’ claims for damages in Paragraphs 26(a)-(b) of the

complaint.2 The parties entered a stipulation in which the Mocks withdrew their

claims for damages relating to attorneys’ fees so that the court could enter

final judgment and the Mocks could proceed to appeal the dismissal of the

claims for damages in Paragraphs 26(a)-(b).3 The court entered judgment in

favor of the Defendants, and the Mocks appealed.

       The Mocks raise the following issues:

       A. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an
       error of law in granting the motion for reconsideration of
       Defendants Adams and, in turn, Defendants’ motions for summary
       judgment as to particular items of damages when the trial court

____________________________________________

2 The Mocks appealed from this order, but we quashed the appeal because the

trial court had not made an express determination that an immediate appeal
from the interlocutory order would facilitate resolution of the entire case. See
Mock v. Adams, No. 905 WDA 2021 (Pa.Super. filed Feb. 24, 2022).

3 According to the stipulation, the Mocks only withdrew their claims for
attorneys’ fees in Counts I, II, and III of the complaint. Therefore, it appears
their claims for attorneys’ fees in County IV of the complaint were still at issue
following the stipulation. Nonetheless, the court entered judgment for the
Defendants in accordance with the stipulation. This was a final order which
disposed of any remaining claims. Furthermore, as stated above, the Mocks
asserted at the hearing that they would not be pursuing attorneys’ fees.

                                            -5-
J-A15020-23

     did not expressly grant reconsideration by order of court within
     thirty (30) days of the date of filing of such motion?

     B. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an
     error of law in granting Defendants Adams’ motion for
     reconsideration and, in turn, their motions for summary judgment
     so as to preclude [the Mocks] from recovering damages in their
     breach of contract action for foregoing collection of the judgments
     previously confessed against such Defendants where the trial
     court failed to consider the intent of the contract between the
     parties and all of the terms and provisions thereof in ascertaining
     such intent and/or to correctly interpret the same?

     C. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an
     error of law in granting Defendants Adams’ motion for
     reconsideration and, in turn, Defendants’ motions for summary
     judgment so as to preclude [the Mocks] from recovering damages
     in their breach of contract action for foregoing collection of the
     judgments previously confessed against such Defendants where
     [the Mocks], contrary to the trial court’s view, did not receive the
     benefit of the bargain as set forth in the contract in foregoing
     collection of the prior confessed judgments?

     D. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an
     error of law in ruling that [the Mocks] could not recover damages
     in their negligent misrepresentation action against Defendant
     Campbell and his law firm for foregoing collection of the
     judgments previously confessed against Defendants Adams where
     the trial court decided such issue on the basis of contract law
     rather than principals applicable to a claim for negligent
     misrepresentation?

     E. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an
     error of law in ruling that [the Mocks] could not recover damages
     in their negligent misrepresentation action against Defendant
     Campbell and his law firm for foregoing collection of the
     judgments previously confessed against such Defendants Adams
     where the court’s decision appears to treat the breach of contract
     . . . against Defendants Adams and the negligent
     misrepresentation against Defendant Campbell as the same,
     rather than separate, act(s) giving rise to separate causes of
     action?

     F. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or committed
     an error of law in denying [the Mocks’] motion for reconsideration
     of the court’s denial of partial summary judgment as to

                                    -6-
J-A15020-23

       Defendants’ ability to raise the affirmative defense of failure to
       mitigate damages when such defense was never raised in new
       matter and the trial court denied Defendants’ motions to amend
       their answers with new matter to include such affirmative
       defenses?

The Mocks’ Br. at 4-6.

    I. Jurisdiction to Reconsider of the Denial of Summary Judgment

       The Mocks first argue that the court did not have jurisdiction to alter its

order denying summary judgment because it did not expressly grant

reconsideration within 30 days of entering that order.4 See id. at 20-21 (citing

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219 (Pa.Super. 2007)).

Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to act on a motion is a question of law.

Annechino v. Joire, 946 A.2d 121, 123 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2008). Therefore,

“our standard of review is de novo and the scope of our review is plenary.”

Bastian v. Sullivan, 117 A.3d 338, 343 (Pa.Super. 2015).

       A trial court will lose jurisdiction 30 days after entering a final order

unless it expressly grants reconsideration within the 30-day period. 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 5505; Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); PNC Bank, N.A.,

929 A.2d at 226. Here, however, the court did not enter a final order when it

denied the motions for summary judgment. Rather, its order was non-final

because it did not resolve all claims against all parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(c);
____________________________________________

4 Although this argument seems at odds with the fact that the Mocks
acquiesced to the continuance of trial so that the court could reconsider the
motion for summary judgment, and the Mocks filed their own motion for
reconsideration, the Mocks raised the issue of jurisdiction during the hearing
on the motions. Moreover, the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction is
not waivable. Strasburg Scooters, LLC v. Strasburg Rail Rd., Inc., 210
A.3d 1064, 1067 (Pa.Super. 2019).

                                           -7-
J-A15020-23

Stewart v. Precision Airmotive, LLC, 7 A.3d 266, 271 (Pa.Super. 2010).

The court therefore did not need to grant reconsideration of the order within

the following 30 days to retain jurisdiction and act on the motion for

reconsideration. See Szwerc v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., 235

A.3d 331, 336 (Pa.Super. 2020) (discussing application of 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

5505, which provides that a trial court has authority to modify or rescind an

order for 30 days, to final orders); see also Commonwealth v.

Impellizzeri, 661 A.2d 422, 432 (Pa.Super. 1995) (refusing to extend law of

the case rule to prevent trial court from modifying its own pre-trial order

following a change in circumstances).

                    II. Damages – Breach of Contract

      In their next two issues, the Mocks argue the court erred in concluding

they could not prove they sustained damages from their having marked the

confessed judgments as satisfied. They assert that the Adamses “had a

contractual obligation . . . to make sure all federal employment taxes . . . were

paid to date at the time the contract was entered and to provide the Mocks

with proof of that.” The Mocks’ Br. at 24 (emphasis in original). The Mocks

argue the Agreement also provided that the Adamses “had a duty to pay the

federal taxes before the Mocks relinquished their ability to collect on the

judgments.” Id. at 25 (emphasis in original). The Mocks claim that in failing

to comply with these provisions, the Adamses materially breached the

Agreement, and that the amount of their resulting “reliance and/or restitution”

damages — which they claim was the amount of the confessed judgments —

                                      -8-
J-A15020-23

was certain. Id. at 25, 28. The Mocks also argue that they did not receive “the

benefit of the bargain,” because when the Adamses transferred the business

back to them, it was not unencumbered by tax liability as the Agreement

shows the parties had intended.

      Summary judgment may be granted “in cases where there are no

genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” Nicolaou v. Martin, 195 A.3d 880, 891 (Pa. 2018). The

calculation of damages for the breach of contract alleged in this case presents

a question of law. Newman Dev. Grp. of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi's

Fam. Mkt., Inc., 98 A.3d 645, 653 (Pa.Super. 2014). Therefore, our standard

of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Id.

      The trial court observed that the Mocks sought both (1) to return to the

position they would have occupied prior to the Agreement, by regaining the

right to collect on the amount of the confessed judgments, which represented

the value of the business; and (2) to retain ownership of that same business,

which they had acquired through the Agreement. Trial Ct. Mem. Op. at 6. The

court noted that “if the [Agreement] had been performed, [the Mocks] would

have [had] the [b]usiness free and clear of any tax obligation—nothing more

and nothing less.” Id. at 6 n.4. The court found that even if the Mocks could

prove the Adamses had breached the Agreement, they were not entitled to

the “double recovery” of retaining both the business and the confessed

judgments. Id.

                                     -9-
J-A15020-23

      We see no error in this determination. We accordingly affirm the court’s

dismissal of the Mocks’ claim for damages for their having marked satisfied

the confessed judgments in the breach of contract claim against the Adamses.

              III. Damages – Negligent Misrepresentation

      In their fourth and fifth issues, the Mocks argue that the court erred in

conflating their negligent misrepresentation claim against Campbell with their

breach of contract claim against the Adamses. They stress that the negligent

misrepresentation claim was based not on the Adamses’ failure to satisfy the

tax obligations, but on Campbell’s misstatements that the obligations had

been satisfied. They argue that they justifiably relied on Campbell’s

misrepresentations, and “suffered injury in foregoing collecting against the

judgments[.]” The Mocks’ Br. at 32. They argue that recovering damages in

the amount of the confessed judgments will put them in a position equivalent

to their position prior to the misrepresentation.

      The trial court did not separately address the counts against Campbell

and his law firm for negligent misrepresentation. However, it stated that its

ruling applied “across all Defendants,” because the Mocks had alleged the

same damages in each count. Trial Ct. Mem. Op. at 7 n.6.

      We affirm the court’s dismissal of the Mocks’ claims for damages

resulting from having marked the confessed judgments as satisfied in their

negligent   misrepresentation   claims. To    state   a   claim   for   negligent

misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege, “(1) a misrepresentation of a

material fact; (2) made under circumstances in which the actor should have

                                     - 10 -
J-A15020-23

known of its falsity; (3) with an intent to induce another to act on it; (4)

thereby   causing    injury   to   a   party     who   justifiably   relied   upon   the

misrepresentation.” Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 245 A.3d 637, 646 (Pa.

2021).

      Here, the Mocks’ claim fails for want of injury. The Mocks allege their

injury is that they performed under the Agreement by marking the confessed

judgments as satisfied, while the Adamses allegedly were in breach. However,

execution of a contract into which they voluntarily entered is not an injury.

Even if Campbell had never made an alleged misrepresentation, and even if

the Mocks had realized that the Adamses were in alleged breach before they

marked the confessed judgments as satisfied, the Mocks would still have had

a duty to mark the confessed judgments satisfied once the Adamses paid the

taxes. The Mocks do not argue that they would have been able to rescind the

Agreement, or that their marking the confessed judgments at an earlier date

caused any losses.

      In addition, even if their having marked the confessed judgments as

satisfied could be considered as injurious in their negligent misrepresentation

claim, the Mocks would be barred from recovery under the economic loss rule.

They have not alleged any physical injury or property damage resulting from

the alleged negligent misrepresentation. See Excavation Techs., Inc. v.

Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 936 A.2d 111, 114-15, 115 n.7 (Pa.Super. 2007)

(en banc). Although this rule does not apply to a “professional information

provider,” id. at 116, the Mocks have not argued that Campbell fits that bill.

                                        - 11 -
J-A15020-23

                          IV. Mitigation of Damages

     In their sixth and final issue, the Mocks assert that the Adamses waived

any argument that they (the Mocks) failed to mitigate their damages, by

failing to plead this as an affirmative defense. Because we affirm the trial

court’s dismissal of damages in the amount of the confessed judgments, and

the Mocks withdrew their remaining claims, whether the Mocks failed to

mitigate damages and whether the Defendants waived that defense are moot.

     Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/29/2023

                                    - 12 -