Court Opinion

ID: 9704954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:53:01.988946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:06.848119
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Senior Judge Barbieri:
While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that affirms the common pleas court’s grant of summary *402judgment in favor of the Union, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to deny the Union’s request for attorney’s fees under Pa. R. A.P. 2744 and therefore must, most respectfully, dissent.
We have on several recent occasions expressed our strong displeasure with litigants who insist upon clogging the courts and abusing the appeals process with frivolous appeals. See Patel v. Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Saquoit Fibers Company), 103 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 290, 520 A.2d 525 (1987); Appeal of Richard Michael George, 101 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 241, 515 A.2d 1047 (1986). Pa. R.A.P. 2744 permits an appellate court to impose an award of reasonable attorneys fees against a litigant where the appellate court has determined that the litigant’s appeal is wholly frivolous or taken solely for delay. See Gossman v. Lower Chanceford Township Board of Supervisors, 503 Pa. 392, 469 A.2d 996 (1983). We have previously defined a “wholly frivolous” appeal as one that is completely devoid of points that might arguably support an appeal. Craig v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 93 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 586, 502 A.2d 758 (1985). I respectfully submit that the City’s appeal from the common pleas court’s grant of summary judgment falls within the Craig definition of a wholly frivolous appeal.
In this case, the Union attempted to arbitrate a dispute it had with the City over the method of payment of firefighters’ salaries which the Union argues shortchanged the firefighters. The agreement between the City and the Union called for arbitration of wage matters. The City refused to arbitrate the dispute contending the method of payment of wages was outside of the arbitratable issues under the agreement. I respectfully submit that such an overtechnical interpretation of the agreement is patently frivolous and the common *403pleas court so found when it granted the Union an award of attorneys fees under Section 2503 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §2503. The City has not appealed that attorneys fee award which leads to a seemingly incongruous result where this Court affirms the common pleas courts determination that the City’s action was wholly frivolous but denies the Union’s request for attorney’s fees finding the City’s appeal of that action was not wholly frivolous. I view the City’s failure to contest the trial court’s assessment of counsel fees as an admission of the frivolity of its contentions. I would not reward such legal pettifogging and would grant the Union’s request for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees under Pa. R.A.P. 2744 as the City’s appeal, in my view, is wholly frivolous and taken solely for the purpose of delay.