Court Opinion

ID: 9369759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 17:08:05.171554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.889841
License: Public Domain

J-S45001-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 COMPANY                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 DANIEL DORTIC                           :
                                         :   No. 1914 EDA 2022
                    Appellant            :

             Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 23, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at
                           No(s): 2019-C-7086

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                        FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2023

      Appellant, Daniel Dortic, appeals from the judgment entered on June

23, 2022, in favor of Plaintiff, Branch Banking & Trust Company (hereinafter

“Plaintiff”), and against Appellant, in the amount of $49,984.27. We affirm.

      The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural

posture of this case:

        Plaintiff filed a complaint against [Appellant] on August 5,
        2019, seeking judgment against him in the amount of
        $49,984.27 plus costs. Plaintiff averred in the complaint that
        [Appellant] is the holder of a credit agreement (“Credit Line
        Agreement”), the terms and conditions of which were agreed
        to by the parties. Plaintiff further averred that [Appellant]
        defaulted under the terms and conditions of the credit
        agreement by failing to make the required payments when
        due and that [Appellant] has an outstanding balance due and
        owing to Plaintiff in the amount of $49,984.27.

        On August 5, 2019, [Appellant] filed an answer to the
        complaint with new matter and a counterclaim. In his
J-S45001-22

       answer, [Appellant] stated that he is without sufficient
       knowledge to admit or deny that he is the holder of the credit
       agreement because he “does not recall any amounts owed on
       the alleged account.” In response to the averments in the
       complaint concerning his alleged default of the terms and
       conditions of the credit agreement and the alleged due and
       owing balance, [Appellant] denied [the averments], stating
       that he “is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
       allegation[s]” because he [was] without documentation that
       indicate[d] that he could be in default and/or documentation
       showing any amounts due to Plaintiff. In [Appellant’s]
       counterclaim for conversion, [Appellant] ask[ed] that
       judgment be entered in his favor because Plaintiff exercised
       wrongful dominion and control when it withdrew money in
       excess of $30,000 from a joint account, owned by [Appellant]
       and his wife as tenants by the entireties, in order to offset
       the default on [Appellant’s] individual obligation to Plaintiff
       under the Credit Line Agreement.

       On October 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary
       judgment and a memorandum of law in support thereof,
       arguing that there [was] no genuine issue of material fact
       and requesting [the trial court] to enter judgment against
       [Appellant] in the sum of $49,984.27.                Regarding
       [Appellant’s] counterclaim, Plaintiff explain[ed] in his motion
       for summary judgment that on January 7, 2019, it offset from
       [Appellant] and his wife’s Joint Checking Account and Joint
       CD Account amounts in the sums of $16,082.61 and
       $11,588.36, respectively, to pay down the amount due and
       owing under [Appellant’s] Credit Line Agreement. Plaintiff
       further explain[ed] that these offsets were permissible
       pursuant to the Credit Line Agreement that [Appellant]
       entered into on August 9, 2016, as well as a Bank Services
       Agreement sent to [Appellant] and his wife on or about May
       9, 2016.

                                    ...

       Section 19 of [Appellant’s] executed Credit Line Agreement
       states, in relevant part,

          Right to Setoff: You [(Plaintiff)] have the right to deduct
          any money I owe for a minimum Periodic Payment more
          than 15 days past due or the entire unpaid Outstanding

                                    -2-
J-S45001-22

          Balance (if the entire Outstanding Balance is due for any
          reason set forth in the Termination, Payment in Full
          paragraph) from any bank account I have at any of your
          offices or from any other money I have which is held by
          or due from you.

       Credit Line Agreement at ¶ 19.

       Section 13 of the Bank Services Agreement, sent on May 9,
       2016 to [Appellant] and his wife with respect to their jointly[]
       held accounts, provides, in relevant part, the following:

          RIGHT OF SETOFF: You hereby assign and grant to
          [Plaintiff] a security interest in all accounts as security for
          your obligations to the [Plaintiff] existing now or in the
          future.     [Plaintiff] reserves the right of setoff
          against any of your accounts without prior notice to
          you to repay any debt or obligation owed to us by
          you or any co-owner of your account as principal,
          endorser, or guarantor. This means that we have
          the right to apply part or all of the funds in your
          account for the satisfaction of any debt you or any
          co-owner of the account owes us. If your account is
          an individual account, our right of setoff may be exercised
          to repay your debts, whether they are owned by you
          individually or jointly with others. All of the funds in a
          joint account may be used to repay the debts of any
          co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a
          co-owner, jointly with other co-owners, or jointly
          with other persons or entities having no interest in
          your account. Debts subject to our right of setoff
          include those owed by you from another joint account in
          which you are a co-owner even though the debt may not
          have been directly incurred by you, as well as debts for
          which you are only secondarily liable. Our security
          interest and our right of setoff also applies: (i) when we
          give you credit for or cash a third-party check which is
          returned to us unpaid for any reason or is counterfeit
          regardless of the timing of said return; (ii) to cover
          overdrafts created in any account held by you or in which
          you have an interest whether or not you consented to the
          overdraft or are otherwise responsible for it; (iii) to
          recover service charges or fees owed by you or any joint
          owner of your account; (iv) to reimburse [Plaintiff] for any

                                     -3-
J-S45001-22

          costs or expenses in enforcing its rights, including,
          without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and the
          costs of litigation to the extent permitted by law. We may
          exercise our right of setoff or security interest even if the
          withdrawal results in an early withdrawal penalty or the
          dishonor of subsequent checks. You agree that [Plaintiff]
          will not be responsible for dishonoring items presented
          against your account when the exercise of our right of
          setoff or security interest results in insufficient funds in
          your account to cover the items. Our right of setoff or
          security interest may be exercised before or after the
          death of any account holder and can follow the proceeds
          to any other account held at [Plaintiff].

          Failure of [Plaintiff] to exercise its right of setoff as
          provided herein on any occasion when the right arises
          does not affect [Plaintiff’s] right to exercise its right of
          setoff at a later time for the same occurrence or for any
          subsequent occurrence. The security interest granted
          by this Agreement is consensual and is in addition
          to [Plaintiff’s] right of setoff. Certain federal or state
          laws may be interpreted to protect funds received from
          federal or state agencies from setoff. You agree that our
          right of setoff applies to all funds deposited into your
          account, including funds received from the Social Security
          Administration and other federal or state agencies. By
          continuing to deposit these funds into your account
          you agree to allow [Plaintiff] to exercise its right of
          setoff against these funds, and not to assert any
          claim or defense that these deposits are exempt
          from setoff based on any federal or state law, rule,
          or regulation.

       Bank Services Agreement at ¶ 13 (emphasis added).

                                    ...

       On November 26, 2021, [Appellant] filed a response in
       opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,
       admitting that Plaintiff and [Appellant] both executed a Credit
       Line Agreement on August 9, 2016 and that Plaintiff offset
       amounts from accounts jointly held by [Appellant] and his
       wife to pay down the amount due and owing under the Credit
       Line Agreement. However, . . . [Appellant argued] that while

                                    -4-
J-S45001-22

        the right of setoff is recognized as part of the common law of
        Pennsylvania, Plaintiff has not established that it was entitled
        to take money of another person ([Appellant’s] wife) to pay
        a debt due by a depositor [(Appellant)]. [Appellant] further
        contends that his and his wife’s mere receipt of the Bank
        Services Agreement may not be sufficient to demonstrate
        that they consented to the offset in order to overcome a
        conversion claim.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/22, at 1-3 and 5-6 (some capitalization and citations

omitted).

      On June 23, 2022, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s counterclaim for

conversion, granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and entered

judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, and against Appellant, in the amount of

$49,984.27. Trial Court Order, 6/23/22, at 1. Appellant filed a timely notice

of appeal. He raises one claim to this Court:

        Did the trial court judge abuse his discretion in determining
        that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether
        Plaintiff’s conversion of the funds contained in [Appellant’s]
        jointly held entireties bank account violated the doctrine of
        tenancy by entireties in allowing the funds owed by
        [Appellant] and his spouse, in entireties, to be converted for
        a debt individually owed by [Appellant]?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (some capitalization omitted).

      We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Jennifer R.

Sletvold. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for

the reasons expressed in Judge Sletvold’s June 23, 2022 opinion. Therefore,

we affirm on the basis of Judge Sletvold’s thorough opinion and adopt it as

                                      -5-
J-S45001-22

our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling,

the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Sletvold’s June 23, 2022 opinion.

      Judgment affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/9/2023

                                      -6-
Circulated 01/30/2023 01:58 PM