Gray, P. v. Jackson, G. ( 2018 )

J-S17017-18
J-S17018-18
J-S17019-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
PATRICIA R. GRAY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
GWENDOLYN L. JACKSON AND : No. 2923 EDA 2017
BROWN'S SUPER STORES, INC. :
D/B/A SHOPRITE OF PARKSIDE :
Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): August Term, 2000, No. 02040
PATRICIA R. JACKSON GRAY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
A/K/A PATRICIA GRAY AND T. : PENNSYLVANIA
BARRY GRAY :
:
:
v. :
:
:
GWENDOLYN L. JACKSON AND : No. 2927 EDA 2017
BROWN'S SUPER STORES, INC. :
D/B/A SHOPRITE OF PARKSIDE :
:
:
APPEAL OF: PATRICIA R. GRAY :
Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): September Term, 2009, No. 03174
PATRICIA JACKSON GRAY A/K/A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PATRICIA GRAY : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
J-S17017-18
J-S17018-18
J-S17019-18
:
GWENDOLYN L. JACKSON, :
BROWN'S SUPER STORES, INC. : No. 2928 EDA 2017
D/B/A SHOPRITE OF PARKSIDE :
:
:
APPEAL OF: PATRICIA R. GRAY :
Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): March Term, 2014, No. 03768
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 13, 2018
Patricia R. Gray, pro se, appeals from the orders, entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, setting aside writs of execution and
interrogatories in attachment and dissolving any attachments existing by
virtue of those writs.1 Upon review, we quash the appeals as moot.
These appeals stem from Gray’s efforts to collect judgments she
obtained against her sister, Gwendolyn Jackson, as a result of various
lawsuits. In May 2017, Jackson reached a settlement in her own slip-and-fall
lawsuit against Brown’s Super Stores (Brown’s) in the amount of $215,000.00.
In June 2017, when Gray learned that Jackson had settled her action, she filed
praecipes for writs of execution against Brown’s in five of the cases in which
____________________________________________
1These are three appeals from three separate orders entered in three separate
case numbers. Because they all involve the same factual and legal issues, we
have, sua sponte, consolidated the appeals for purposes of disposition. See
Pa.R.A.P. 513.
-2-
J-S17017-18
J-S17018-18
J-S17019-18
she possessed judgments against Jackson.2 Gray did not file for writs against
Brown’s insurers.
Brown’s, whose insurer was contractually obligated to pay the
settlement proceeds to Jackson’s attorneys, filed petitions to set aside the
writs of execution filed against it, because it was not actually in possession of
any funds owed to Jackson. Brown’s wanted its insurer to be able to release
the settlement funds to Jackson’s attorneys in order to complete the
settlement process, but averred that “[t]he existence of the Writ(s) of
Execution have . . . interjected uncertainty and concern on the part of all
parties as to the proper manner of concluding the settlement of the slip and
fall case.” Brown’s Super Stores, Inc.’s Petition to Set Aside Writ of Execution
and Dissolve Attachment (Case No. 000802040), 6/13/17, at ¶ 20. Gray filed
answers and supplemental answers to Brown’s petitions. Three of those
petitions – those at issue in the instant appeals – were assigned to the
Honorable Daniel J. Anders for disposition.
Judge Anders held oral argument on August 9, 2017, at which Gray
appeared and was heard. After argument, the court issued three orders
setting aside the writs and dissolving any associated attachments. Gray did
____________________________________________
2 Gray had previously filed a writ against Brown’s in a sixth case.
-3-
J-S17017-18
J-S17018-18
J-S17019-18
not request the court stay the effect of its orders pending appeal.3 On August
11, 2017, Brown’s insurer delivered the settlement proceeds of Jackson’s slip-
and-fall case to Jackson’s attorneys, pursuant to the settlement agreement
reached by the parties in that matter. Jackson’s attorneys advised Gray of
this fact via amended answers to interrogatories in aid of attachment dated
August 24, 2017.4
On September 2, 2017, Gray filed three separate notices of appeal as
to the orders entered by Judge Anders on August 9, 2017. On October 11,
2017, Brown’s filed with this Court motions to quash each of Gray’s appeals
for mootness. These motions were denied without prejudice to Brown’s right
to raise the issue again in its appellate briefs. Judge Anders issued his
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinions on December 11, 2017, in which he recommended
that the appeals be quashed for mootness. Brown’s has again raised the issue
of mootness in its appellee’s briefs. Gray does not address the mootness issue
in her briefs.
____________________________________________
3 The day after Judge Anders issued his orders setting aside the writs in the
three cases before him, Gray voluntarily withdrew the remaining writs she had
filed.
4 Gray had also filed for writs of execution against Jackson’s attorneys. Gray
voluntarily withdrew those writs the day after Judge Anders entered his orders
setting aside the writs in the instant matters.
-4-
J-S17017-18
J-S17018-18
J-S17019-18
An issue before a court is moot if, in ruling upon the issue, the court
cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect. Rivera v.
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 837 A.2d 525, 527 (Pa. Super. 2003).
The cases presenting mootness problems involve litigants who
clearly had standing to sue at the outset of the litigation. The
problems arise from events occurring after the lawsuit has gotten
under way—changes in the facts or in the law—which allegedly
deprive the litigant of the necessary stake in the outcome.
In re Gross, 382 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa. 1978). Generally, an actual claim or
controversy must be present at all stages of the judicial process for the case
to be actionable or reviewable. J.S. v. Whetzel, 860 A.2d 1112, 1118 (Pa.
Super. 2004). If events occur to eliminate the claim or controversy at any
stage in the process, the case becomes moot. Id.
Here, Gray filed for writs of execution against Brown’s in an effort to
attach settlement proceeds that were owed by Brown’s, through its insurer,
to Jackson. After the trial court set aside the writs of execution, but before
Gray filed her appeals, Brown’s insurer, pursuant to the settlement between
Brown’s and Jackson, forwarded the balance5 of the settlement funds to
Jackson’s attorneys. Accordingly, Brown’s has fully satisfied its obligation to
Jackson and is not in possession of any funds owed or belonging to Jackson.
Reinstatement of the writs would not bring the proceeds back into Brown’s or
____________________________________________
5 The insurer had previously paid out a small portion of the settlement
proceeds to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to satisfy
a Medicare lien.
-5-
J-S17017-18
J-S17018-18
J-S17019-18
its insurer’s possession; any claim Gray may have had against Brown’s has
been eliminated. See id. Thus, as no orders this Court could enter would
have any legal force or effect, Rivera, supra, we are compelled to quash
these appeals.
Appeals quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/13/18
-6-