F. Bey v. PA DOC, SCI Somerset ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Freedom Bey,                            :
    :
    Appellant    :
    :
    v.                      : No. 120 C.D. 2020
    : Submitted: September 3, 2021
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,           :
    Department of Corrections d/b/a         :
    State Correctional Institution at       :
    Somerset a/k/a SCI-Somerset             :
    BEFORE:        HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
    HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                        FILED: December 30, 2021
    Freedom Bey (Inmate) appeals the order of the Somerset County Court
    of Common Pleas (trial court) granting the Motion to Enforce Settlement of the
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections d/b/a State
    Correctional     Institution   at   Somerset   a/k/a   SCI-Somerset      (collectively,
    Commonwealth), thereby enforcing a settlement agreement between Inmate and the
    Commonwealth, and directing Inmate to execute a release within 10 days of the date
    of the court’s order, and to file a Praecipe to Settle and Release in that court within
    10 days of his receipt of settlement funds, or suffer sanctions by that court. We
    affirm.
    On October 21, 2019, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Enforce
    Settlement in which it sought to enforce a settlement of claims raised by Inmate in a
    lawsuit that he filed in the trial court relating to damages that he suffered as a result
    of a purported Legionella outbreak at SCI-Somerset in July of 2013. See Original
    Record (O.R.) Docket Entry No. 69. On January 10, 2020, following an evidentiary
    hearing on the Motion, the trial court issued the following relevant Findings of Fact
    and Conclusions of Law:
    [I]n or about 2013[, Inmate] was suffering from symptoms
    that were flu-like in nature, and [] the symptoms were
    associated with an alleged [outbreak] of Legionnaires’
    Disease or [L]egionella at SCI[-]Somerset.
    Subsequently[, Inmate] instituted a lawsuit in
    federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania at
    Docket No. 3:15-CV-00167-KRG-KAP[.]
    Additionally, a lawsuit was filed in the court of
    common pleas in Somerset County, Pennsylvania at
    Docket No. 307 CIVIL 2015.
    In each of these lawsuits[, Inmate] was represented
    by the law firm of Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. [(Law
    Firm).]
    On or about March 6[,] 2017, a letter was sent by
    Abigail Nath of the [Law Firm] confirming a telephone
    conversation that she had with [Inmate] whereby [Inmate]
    had given the [Law Firm] blanket authority to settle the
    subject lawsuit pending approval from Mr. Timothy J.
    Lyons.
    The letter, again, which was marked as Exhibit A in
    this evidentiary hearing, indicates that Mr. Lyons felt that
    settling the case was in [Inmate’s] best interest.
    Subsequently, on or about March 30, 2017, a letter
    was sent to [Inmate] from the [Law Firm] instructing and
    2
    informing [Inmate] that the Attorney General’s Office had
    made an offer to settle his claims in the amount of $2,250.
    The [Law Firm] recommended that [Inmate] accept
    this offer, and that letter was introduced into evidence in
    this hearing as Exhibit B.
    Part of that letter was that the [Law Firm] would
    have a cost associated with the settlement in the amount of
    $500, and it directed [Inmate] to countersign and date the
    letter if he was inclined to accept the offer[.]
    And[,] in fact, [Inmate] did countersign the letter,
    and it is dated April 17, 2017.
    Subsequent to that, [Inmate] had written a letter to
    [the Law Firm]. That letter was introduced today as
    Exhibit C. It[ i]s dated September 24, 2017. And in that
    letter[, Inmate] indicates that he had concerns with
    Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Release that was sent to him and
    [wanted] to discuss those Paragraphs with his attorneys.
    Subsequently, on or about May 15, 2019, [Inmate
    wrote a letter to Attorney Simon of [the Law Firm],
    wherein he indicated that if [the Law Firm] agreed to
    waive [its] fee of $500, that he would accept the settlement
    amount of $2,250 immediately.
    In that letter[,] he also indicates that if [the Law
    Firm was] not willing to forfeit [its] fee, then [Inmate] was
    requesting that his case file be sent to him, and that counsel
    alert the Honorable Judge Keith Pesto that he would like
    to proceed to a jury trial as soon as possible.
    Subsequently, on June 20, 2019, a letter was sent to
    [Inmate] by [the Law Firm]. In that letter[,] Attorney
    Simon advised [Inmate] that [the Law Firm] had agreed to
    waive its costs in the amount of $500. And [it] forwarded
    to [Inmate] a Revised Settlement Statement reflecting that
    so that the ultimate outcome was that [Inmate] would
    receive the entire settlement proceeds of $2,250.
    3
    The letter also indicates that a copy of the Release
    is enclosed, and [it] ha[s] directed or asked [Inmate] to
    sign the Release and return it.
    The court concludes that [Inmate] did[,] in fact[,]
    agree to settle his claims in this case for the amount of
    $2,250.
    Other than [Inmate’s] testimony today that this
    settlement was somehow contingent upon there being a
    satisfactory Release, none of the written documentation
    that has been introduced into evidence today indicates that
    the settlement was in any way contingent upon other
    factors.
    Therefore, the court does conclude that [Inmate] did
    knowingly and intelligently enter into a binding
    Settlement and Release of all claims for the sum of $2,250.
    The court does not find credible [Inmate’s]
    testimony that he attached to the settlement any
    contingencies or reservations or concerns that he was
    somehow not being afforded the right to obtain other legal
    counsel or to proceed to trial.
    And, in fact, [Inmate’s] letter of May 5, 2019, which
    is identified as Exhibit D in today’s record, indicates that
    if he was[ no]t going to receive the full amount of $2,250,
    then he wanted his file returned to him, and he wa[nted]
    Judge Keith Pesto to be advised that he wanted to proceed
    to a jury trial.
    This evidence clearly [shows] that [Inmate] still
    understood that he still had the right to go to trial, or to
    obtain other legal counsel. And the court does not find or
    conclude that [Inmate] was coerced, or was under duress,
    or forced into this settlement, and that he had the ability to
    decline the settlement an either hire other counsel or
    simply proceed to trial on his own.
    Therefore, again, I conclude that a valid and binding
    settlement in the total amount of $2,250 was reached
    between [Inmate] and [the Commonwealth].
    4
    Therefore, I am going to grant the Motion to
    Enforce Settlement, and will execute the proposed order
    of court that is attached to the Motion.
    O.R. Docket Entry No. 75. Accordingly, the trial court entered the order granting
    the Motion to Enforce Settlement and Inmate then filed the instant appeal of the trial
    court’s order.1
    On appeal,2 Inmate claims that the trial court erred in enforcing the
    settlement agreement because: (1) the evidence admitted at the hearing does not
    1
    This Court has stated:
    When reviewing a trial court’s decision to enforce a
    settlement agreement, an appellate court’s scope of review is
    plenary as to questions of law, and we may draw our own inferences
    and reach our own conclusions from the facts as found by the trial
    court. “However, we are only bound by the trial court’s findings of
    fact which are supported by competent evidence.” “The prevailing
    party is entitled to have the evidence viewed in the light most
    favorable to its position.” “Thus, we will only overturn the trial
    court’s decision when the factual findings of the court are against
    the weight of the evidence or its legal conclusions are erroneous.”
    Baribault v. Zoning Hearing Board of Haverford Township, 
    236 A.3d 112
    , 117 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2020), appeal denied, 
    256 A.3d 420
     (Pa. 2021) (citations omitted).
    2
    As we have explained:
    The enforceability of a settlement agreement is determined
    according to principles of contract law. Mazzella v. Koken, [
    739 A.2d 531
    , 536 (Pa. 1999)]; see School District of Philadelphia v.
    Framlau Corp[oration, 
    328 A.2d 866
    , 870 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974)] (“A
    settlement of litigation is a compromise agreement comprised of all
    the traditional elements of a contract.”). To be enforceable, a
    settlement agreement must possess all the elements of a valid
    contract -- offer, acceptance, and consideration or a meeting of the
    minds. Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod &
    Gutnick, [
    587 A.2d 1346
    , 1349 (Pa. 1991)]; A.S. v. Office for
    Dispute Resolution (Quakertown Community School District), 88
    (Footnote continued on next page…)
    5
    demonstrate a meeting of the parties’ minds; (2) Inmate did not sign the settlement
    paperwork that he was told that he needed to sign to finalize the settlement; (3)
    Inmate did not agree to the settlement; (4) more than two years passed between the
    initial settlement offer and the filing of the Commonwealth’s Motion to Enforce
    Settlement; and (5) no representative from SCI-Somerset testified at the hearing
    regarding its beliefs and/or the understanding of the parties’ settlement discussions
    or the status of the proposed settlement.
    3 A.3d 256
    , 265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). “[I]t is essential to the
    enforceability of a settlement agreement that the minds of the parties
    should meet upon all the terms, as well as the subject matter, of the
    agreement.” Mazzella, 
    739 A.2d at 536
    .
    Further, “[a]n oral settlement agreement may be enforceable
    and legally binding without a writing.” Bennett v. Juzelenos, 
    791 A.2d 403
    , 407 (Pa. Super. 2002). “‘Where parties have reached an
    oral agreement, the fact that they intend to reduce the agreement to
    writing does not prevent enforcement of the oral agreement.’” 
    Id.
    (quoting Pulcinello v. Consolidated Rail Corp[oration], 
    784 A.2d 122
    , 124 (Pa. Super. 2001)).
    A party wishing to invalidate a contract must “show fraud or
    mutual mistake by clear, precise and convincing evidence.” A.S., 88
    A.3d at 266 (quoting Holt v. Department of Public Welfare, 
    678 A.2d 421
    , 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996)). “[I]f a mistake is unilateral,
    there is no basis for rescinding a contract if the unilateral mistake ‘is
    not due to the fault of the party not mistaken but rather to the
    negligence of the party who acted under the mistake.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting
    Holt, 
    678 A.2d at 423
    )
    Baribault, 236 A.3d at 118-19.
    3
    Any other claims raised in this appeal that were not raised in the trial court or addressed
    by that court have been waived for purposes of appeal. See Pa. R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised
    in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Siegfried v.
    Borough of Wilson, 
    695 A.2d 892
    , 894 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (“Rule 302(a) clearly states that issues
    not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
    (Footnote continued on next page…)
    6
    However, upon review, we have determined that this matter was ably
    disposed of in the comprehensive and well-reasoned Opinion of the Honorable Scott
    P. Bittner disposing of the Commonwealth’s Motion to Enforce Settlement.
    Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order on the basis of the Opinion in Freedom
    Bey v. Department of Corrections, d/b/a State Correctional Institution at Somerset,
    a/k/a SCI Somerset (C.P. Som., No. 307-CIVIL-2015, filed March 3, 2021).
    MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    Additionally, an appellate court may sua sponte refuse to address an issue raised on appeal that
    was not raised and preserved below. In Re Lehigh County Constables, 
    172 A.3d 712
    , 717 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 2017). Moreover, any appellate claims that Inmate did not raise in his Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)
    Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal (Statement) have been waived and will not be
    addressed on this basis as well. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained:
    Our jurisprudence is clear and well[]settled, and firmly
    establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule,
    which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b)
    [S]tatement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule
    1925(b) [S]tatement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the
    authority to countenance deviations from the Rule’s terms; the
    Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or selective
    enforcement; appellants and their counsel are responsible for
    complying with the Rule’s requirements; Rule 1925 violations may
    be raised by the appellate court sua sponte, and the Rule applies
    notwithstanding an appellee’s request not to enforce it; and, if Rule
    1925 is not clear as to what is required of an appellant, on-the-record
    actions taken by the appellant aimed at compliance may satisfy the
    Rule. We yet again repeat the principle . . . that must be applied
    here: “[I]n order to preserve their claims for appellate review,
    [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file
    a [Statement] pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised in
    a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) [S]tatement will be deemed waived.”
    Commonwealth v. Hill, 
    16 A.3d 484
    , 494 (Pa. 2011) (citation and footnote omitted).
    7
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Freedom Bey,                          :
    :
    Appellant    :
    :
    v.                     : No. 120 C.D. 2020
    :
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,         :
    Department of Corrections d/b/a       :
    State Correctional Institution at     :
    Somerset a/k/a SCI-Somerset           :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2021, the order of the Somerset
    County Court of Common Pleas dated January 10, 2020, is AFFIRMED.
    __________________________________
    MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge