The Tinsman Group v. Tri-State Garden Supply ( 2019 )

J-A06013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
THE TINSMAN GROUP, INC. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TRI-STATE GARDEN SUPPLY, INC. :
D/B/A GARDENSCAPE :
: No. 1087 MDA 2018
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Dated June 6, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-03146
BEFORE: OTT, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019
Tri-State Garden Supply, Inc., d/b/a Gardenscape (“Tri-State Garden”)
appeals from the order entered on June 6, 2018, in the Cumberland County
Court of Common Pleas, which denied its petition to open a default judgment
entered against it and in favor of The Tinsman Group, Inc. (“Tinsman”). On
appeal, Tri-State Garden argues the trial court erred in failing to determine
that Tinsman’s counsel committed a fraud upon it and the court by
misrepresenting applicable case law at the default judgment hearing, which
caused the court to award specific damages in the amount of $183,983.83,
without having to prove such damages at a separate hearing. See Tri-State
Garden’s Brief at 1. Moreover, Tri-State Garden contends Tinsman’s counsel
acted fraudulently by failing to abide by Pennsylvania Rule of Professional
Conduct 3.3, which required Tinsman’s counsel to inform the court of material
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A06013-19
facts that would have required the court to deny entry of said damages
because Tinsman had not plead specific damages in its complaint. Id. Based
on the following, we quash the appeal.
The facts and procedural history as follows: On June 8, 2015, Tinsman
filed a breach of contract complaint, alleging Tri-State Garden “was in the
business of producing, transporting and distributing various garden products,
that [Tinsman] had served [Tri-State Garden] as an independent sales
representative, and that [Tri-State Garden] had failed to fully pay
commissions due to [Tinsman] for procuring sales of [Tri-State Garden’s]
products.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/2018, at 2.
Subsequently, on April 18, 2017, Tinsman filed a motion to compel
discovery responses and for sanctions. One day later, the court entered an
order, requiring Tri-State Garden to file answer to interrogatories and requests
for production of documents within 20 days of said order. The court stated:
“Failure to comply with the time period set forth in this Order may result in
the imposition of sanctions including the preclusion of evidence and the
imposition of attorney fees.” Order of Court, 4/19/2017. On May 15, 2017,
Tinsman filed a motion for sanctions with entry of default judgment against
Tri-State Garden pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019, alleging Tri-State Garden had
not responded to the order within the required time period. See Motion for
Sanctions with Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 4019, 5/15/2017, at ¶ 11. On May 22, 2017, the court entered an
-2-
J-A06013-19
order, scheduling a hearing on August 2, 2017, to address Tinsman’s motion
for sanctions and to determine what “sanctions shall be imposed.” Order of
Court, 5/22/2017.
On August 1, 2017, Tri-State Garden filed a motion for continuance,
stating: (1) it had “not been able to locate all of the materials in their office
to properly respond to said Interrogatories” because it had been involved in a
large commercial litigation matter in another county that had required all of
its attention; and (2) its counsel had planned a family vacation which fell
during the time of the hearing. Motion for Continuance, 8/1/2017, at ¶¶ 4-5,
7.1 The following day, the trial court denied Tri-State Garden’s motion for a
____________________________________________
1 With respect to the date of the motion for continuance, the court noted the
following: “As indicated in an earlier opinion in this case, ‘the Motion for
Continuance was received at the Prothonotary’s office on the morning of July
31, 2017, but was not entered on the record until approximately 4:00 P.M. on
August 01, 2017, due to a procedural defect in [Tri-State Garden]’s Motion.’”
Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/2018, at 3 n.9, quoting Opinion and Order of Court,
at 6 n.2, dated September 28, 2017 (Ebert, J.).
Moreover, in Tinsman’s response in opposition to Tri-State Garden’s
motion for continuance, it alleged, in relevant part:
11. Undersigned counsel received no responses to the discovery
requests, or any information from [Tri-State Garden]’s counsel,
until July 27, 2017, when [Tri-State Garden] served upon
undersigned counsel a courtesy copy of a Motion to Continue the
August 2, 2017 hearing. A copy of [counsel for Tri-State
Garden’s] July 26, 2017 correspondence is attached and marked
as Exhibit “A.”
-3-
J-A06013-19
continuance and a hearing on Tinsman’s motion for sanctions proceeded as
scheduled.
At this hearing, the court questioned [Tinsman]’s counsel as
to the recovery amount being sought by [Tinsman], and
[Tinsman]’s counsel responded that [its] records indicated
approximately $73,837.34 in unpaid commissions and that
Pennsylvania’s Sales Representative Act authorized double
damages, reasonable costs and attorney’s fees where the
nonpayment was willful. [Tinsman]’s counsel further noted that
[Tinsman] was requesting additional attorney’s fees in connection
with [Tinsman]’s motion to compel discovery, motion for
sanctions, and appearance at the hearing then being held, in the
amount of $1,470.00, as well as mileage expenses of [Tinsman]’s
representative at the hearing, in the amount of $205.00. In
addition, [Tinsman]’s counsel secured the admission into evidence
of an exhibit relating to her firm’s attorney's fees, and requested
that [Tri-State Garden]’s counterclaim in the case be dismissed.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Ebert asked [Tinsman]’s
counsel to prepare a proposed order “that you think covers all of
these various topics.”
Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/2018, at 3-4 (footnotes omitted).
____________________________________________
12. [Tri-State Garden]’s counsel served said Motion via facsimile
at 6:30 p.m. on July 26, 2017, and informed counsel that he would
be on vacation starting July 27, 2017.
13. [Tri-State Garden]’s counsel did not seek undersigned
counsel’s concurrence prior to filing said Motion.
Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Continuance, 8/2/2017, at
¶¶ 11-13.
-4-
J-A06013-19
Thereafter, the court entered an order,2 which: (1) granted Tinsman’s
motion for sanctions with entry of default judgment; (2) awarded judgment
in favor of Tinsman and against Tri-State Garden in the amount of
$183,753.78;3 (3) entered judgment in favor of Tinsman and against Tri-State
Garden on Tri-State Garden’s counterclaim; and (4) ordered Tri-State Garden
to pay Tinsman the amount of $230.05, representing cost of mileage for
Tinsman’s representative to appear at the hearing pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
4019(g)(1). See Order of Court, 8/3/2017, at unnumbered 1-2.
On August 11, 2017, Tri-State Garden filed a motion for reconsideration
and vacation of the court’s August 3, 2017, order. Tinsman filed a response
in opposition to Tri-State Garden’s motion on August 15, 2017. The trial court
did not rule upon Tri-State Garden’s motion within 30 days of the entry of the
order. Subsequently, on September 29, 2017, the court entered an order and
corresponding opinion, denying Tri-State Garden’s motion for
reconsideration/vacation.4 Tri-State Garden then filed a notice of appeal with
____________________________________________
2 We note the order was dated August 2, 2017, but docketed the following
day. We will use the later date in our analysis.
3 See Order of Court, 8/3/2017 (breaking down award of unpaid commissions,
prejudgment interest, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees).
4 The order was dated one day earlier. In its opinion, the court analyzed the
five factors, set forth in Rohm and Hass Co. v. Lin, 992 A.2d 132, 142 (Pa.
Super, 2010), that must be considered when a discovery sanction is imposed
and concluded:
-5-
J-A06013-19
this Court on October 30, 2017, which was docketed at No. 1686 MDA 2017.5
On February 2, 2018, Tinsman filed a motion to quash Tri-State Garden’s
appeal as untimely,
____________________________________________
In this case, the entry of a default judgment in favor of [Tinsman]
on all counts was clearly appropriate. The threat of sanctions
contained in this court’s Order compelling discovery was
insufficient to motivate [Tri-State Garden] to take any responsive
action in this case. This court’s determination that sanctions were
appropriate, and this court’s Order scheduling a hearing to
determine what those sanctions would be, were insufficient to
motivate [Tri-State Garden] to take any responsive action.
Instead, [Tri-State Garden] simply asked for a continuance of that
sanctions hearing at the last minute due to a preplanned vacation
despite having notice of the sanctions hearing for months. Only
the entry of a default judgment finally, and belatedly, impressed
upon [Tri-State Garden] the understanding that this court’s
Orders are not suggestions and that hearing dates are not
optional.
Opinion and Order of Court, 9/29/2017, at 8-9.
5 Tri-State Garden’s concise statement was summarized by the trial court as
follows:
In the appeal, in a statement of errors complained of on appeal,
[Tri-State Garden] argued, inter alia, that [Tinsman]’s counsel
had been aware that [Tri-State Garden] would be requesting a
continuance of the August 2, 2017, hearing, that the court erred
in “simply taking allegations proffered by [Tinsman]’s counsel as
to the amounts of alleged commissions and the right of [Tinsman]
to be awarded the aggregate amount without providing proof
thereof after a trial of the issues of the case,” that “the calculation
of damages formulated by [Tinsman]’s counsel was never pled nor
produced or claimed until apparently for the first time on August
2, 2017,” and that, “[a]dditionally, the award of Attorney’s fees
without the ability of [Tri-State Garden] to contest the
-6-
J-A06013-19
conceding that [Tri-State Garden]’s appeal from the order entered
on September 29, 2017, was timely, [but] contend[ing] that this
order was a nullity in a jurisdictional sense and that the 30-day
appeal period from the properly appealable judgment entered on
August 3, 2017, had expired without being tolled and without an
appeal having been taken.
Trial Court Opinion, at 8/14/2018, at 6 (footnotes omitted). A panel of this
court granted Tinsman’s motion on March 26, 2018, and quashed Tri-State
Garden’s appeal on May 8, 2018.6
While its appeal was pending, Tri-State Garden filed a petition to open
default judgment on April 6, 2018. Tri-State Garden assailed the sanctions
imposed by the court and alleged the following, in pertinent part:
19. Alternatively, [Tri-State Garden] herein asserts that counsel
for [Tinsman] effected a fraud upon [Tri-State Garden], as a
party, and a fraud upon the Court by counsel’s actions on August
2, 2017 during the hearing of August 2 and whatever ex parte
action was undertaken by [Tinsman]’s counsel following the
adjournment of the hearing on August 2, 2017 at 9:25 a.m., which
necessarily included the presentation to the Court of the Proposed
Order which the Court thereupon signed.
____________________________________________
reasonableness of the same was also entered in error by this
Honorable Court.” [Tri-State Garden] further contended on its
appeal that “[t]he Trial Court erred in simply accepting the
damages in the aggregate, and in the specifics presented by
[Tinsman]’s Counsel without requiring [Tinsman] to prove
damages at trial.”
Trial Court Opinion, at 8/14/2018, at 5 (footnotes omitted).
6 The record does not reflect that Tri-State Garden filed a petition for
allowance of appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Trial Court
Opinion, at 8/14/2018, at 6.
-7-
J-A06013-19
20. Counsel for [Tinsman] effected a fraud on the Court, as well
as a fraud on [Tri-State Garden] as follows:
a. In representing to the Court at the hearing on August 2,
2017 that damages in the amount of $73,837.34 were due
and payable to [Tinsman] by [Tri-State Garden], when
during the course of litigation no such information,
calculation or demand had been made for a specific amount
of damages (Commissions Due); and
b. In representing to the Court that the awarded damages
for the alleged unpaid commissions and doubling of the
commissions as punitive damages under the Pennsylvania
Sales Representative Act[7] were improper when counsel
knew, or should have known, that Respondent had alleged
only general damages in excess of $50,000.00 and not
specific damages, and as required by relevant and pertinent
case law as set forth in the Superior Court cases [Mother’s
Restaurant, Inc. v. Krystlekiewicz, 861 A.2d 327 (Pa.
Super. 2004) and King v. Fayette Aviation, 323 A.2d 286(Pa. Super. 1974)].
c. Presenting or transmitting to the Honorable Judge a
“Proposed Order” without service of said Proposed Order on
counsel for [Tri-State Garden] as required by Pa.R.C.P. No.
440(a)(1) so as to permit [Tri-State Garden]’s counsel to
forward an objection to the Court of the content of said
proposed Order; and
d. Counsel for [Tinsman] violated Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal, Subsection
(d) which is as follows: “(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a
lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known
to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an
informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse”;
specifically by failing to inform [the trial court] of the
principles of law set forth in the Krystlekiewicz and King
____________________________________________
7 43 P.S. §§ 1471-1478 (Commissioned Sales Representatives).
-8-
J-A06013-19
cases, supra, which holdings required that a trial be held
on the issue of damages.
Petition to Open Default Judgment, 4/6/2018, at ¶¶ 19-20.8 A rule was issued
upon Tinsman to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted,
and Tinsman filed a response9 in opposition to Tri-State Garden’s petition on
May 16, 2018.
The court conducted a hearing on Tri-State Garden’s petition to open on
June 5, 2018. The court noted: “Unfortunately, [Tri-State Garden] has failed
to pay for the notes of testimony from this proceeding to be transcribed;
however, neither the evidence nor the argument at the proceeding led the
court to conclude that [Tinsman]’s counsel committed a fraud upon [the trial
____________________________________________
8 During this time, the presiding judge retired and a new judge was reassigned
the matter.
9 As noted by the trial court:
The response included an attachment in the form of an August 2,
2017, letter from [Tinsman]’s counsel to [Tri-State Garden]’s
counsel, enclosing “a copy of [her] correspondence of August 2,
2017 to [the trial court] regarding the above-captioned matter,
together with a Proposed Order and supporting documents, which
was requested of [her] at the [August 2] hearing.” The response
also sought attorney’s fees on behalf of [Tinsman], stating that
“[t]he Petition to Open Default Judgment is a transparent attempt
to circumvent the appellate court’s decision to quash [Tri-State
Garden]’s untimely appeal, and [Tinsman] has spent considerable
time and resources defending against [Tri-State Garden’s]
attempts to avoid responsibility for judgment entered against it.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/2018, at 7-8 (footnotes omitted).
-9-
J-A06013-19
court] or [Tri-State Garden].” Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/2018, at 8. The next
day, the court entered an order denying Tri-State Garden’s petition to open
default judgment.10 Order of Court, 6/6/2018. This appeal followed.11
In its sole issue on appeal, Tri-State Garden contends the court abused
its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law by denying its petition to open
default judgment. See Tri-State Garden’s Brief at xvi. Specifically, Tri-State
Garden states the court erred in granting default judgment in favor of Tinsman
in the amount of $183,983.83 as a penalty for a discovery violation without
the court holding a separate hearing on the issue of damages. Id. at 1. Tri-
State Garden argues the court “erred in simply accepting the damages in the
aggregate, and in the specifics presented by [Tinsman]’s Counsel without
requiring [Tinsman] to prove said damages” at a hearing. Id. at 7. Tri-State
Garden alleges:
The Petition to Open Default Judgment sets forth the
averments in Paragraphs 19 and 20 that Counsel for the Appellee
effected a fraud upon the Petitioner as a party and a fraud upon
the [trial court] by counsel’s actions on August 2, 2017 in
representing to the [c]ourt that the [c]ourt should award damages
to [Tinsman] in a sum calculated by [Tinsman] to be $73,837.34
____________________________________________
10 The court also denied Tinsman’s request for attorney’s fees.
11 On July 3, 2018, the trial court ordered Tri-State Garden to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Tri-State Garden filed a concise statement on July 13, 2018. The trial court
issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on August 14, 2018.
- 10 -
J-A06013-19
and doubled as allegedly authorized by the Pennsylvania Sales
Representative Act.
Id. at 11 (reproduced record citations omitted).12 Moreover, Tri-State Garden
claims Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor toward the
tribunal) was violated when Tinsman’s counsel: (1) “failed to inform [the trial
court] that her client’s Amended Complaint had failed to aver damages in a
‘sum certain’ and/or that the proposed Order could seek damages in a ‘sum
certain;’”13 and (2) “refused to call to the [trial court’s] attention on August 2,
2017 the content of the letter she had received on July 26, 2017” from Tri-
State Garden’s counsel regarding its motion for a continuance.14
Before we may dispose of the substantive merits of Tri-State Garden’s
appeal, we must address the procedural posture of this case. As noted above,
Tri-State previously filed an untimely appeal from the September 29, 2017,
order, denying its motion for reconsideration/vacation with respect to the
August 3, 2017, order and default judgment. That appeal was subsequently
quashed. Tri-State Garden is now appealing from the June 6, 2018, order
denying its petition to open the same default judgment. The underlying
judgment, entered on August 3, 2017, granted Tinsman’s motion for
____________________________________________
12 Tri-State Garden states it was not provided a copy of the proposed order,
requested by the court for Tinsman’s counsel to draft, prior to the court signing
the document. See Tri-State Garden’s Brief at 11.
13 Id. at 14.
14 Id.
- 11 -
J-A06013-19
sanctions, which was filed because Tri-State Garden failed to comply with the
court’s April 19, 2017, order compelling discovery responses on Tri-State
Garden’s part. Accordingly, this was a judgment entered as a discovery
sanction.
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019 governs sanctions and
provides, in relevant part:
(a) (1) The court may, on motion, make an appropriate order if
(i) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers
or objections to written interrogatories under Rule
4005;
…
(vii) a party, in response to a request for production
or inspection made under Rule 4009, fails to respond
that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails
to permit inspection as requested;
(viii) a party or person otherwise fails to make
discovery or to obey an order of court respecting
discovery.
…
(c) The court, when acting under subdivision (a) of this rule, may
make
…
(2) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to
support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or
prohibiting such party from introducing in evidence
designated documents, things or testimony, or from
introducing evidence of physical or mental condition;
(3) an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or
staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or
- 12 -
J-A06013-19
entering a judgment of non pros or by default against the
disobedient party or party advising the disobedience;
…
(g)
(1) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, if following
the refusal, objection or failure of a party or person to
comply with any provision of this chapter, the court, after
opportunity for hearing, enters an order compelling
compliance and the order is not obeyed, the court on a
subsequent motion for sanctions may, if the motion is
granted, require the party or deponent whose conduct
necessitated the motions or the party or attorney advising
such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party
the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred
in obtaining the order of compliance and the order for
sanctions, unless the court finds that the opposition to the
motion was substantially justified or that other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Pa. R.C.P. 4019.
With respect to default judgments entered on the basis of discovery
sanctions, the trial court properly noted, “it is well settled that a petition to
open judgment is not a permissible vehicle to challenge an appealable
monetary judgment entered as a discovery sanction.” Trial Court Opinion,
8/14/2018, at 8, citing Livolsi v. Crosby, 495 A.2d 1384 (Pa. Super. 1985).
In Livolsi, which is similar to the present matter, the plaintiffs filed a
writ of summons in trespass and assumpsit against the defendant.
Subsequently, they filed a motion to produce documents on the defendant,
which she failed to comply with and did not object to the motion. The plaintiffs
then filed a motion for sanctions, to which, once again, the defendant did not
- 13 -
J-A06013-19
respond. The trial court entered an order pursuant to Rule 4019(c), directing
the defendant to produce documents. The defendant again did not comply.
The court then conducted a hearing on the motion, to which the defendant did
not appear for the proceeding. The court entered a final judgment against the
defendant. The defendant did not file a direct appeal but did file a petition to
open and/or strike the judgment. The court denied the petition to open and/or
strike the judgment. On appeal, a panel of this Court quashed the matter,
concluding:
This Court has recently ruled that a judgment which is
entered by the trial court pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(3) as a
sanction is not properly challenged by means of a petition to open.
Miller Oral Surgery, Inc. v. Donald D. Dinello, D.M.D., 342
Pa.Super. 577, 581, 493 A.2d 741, 743 (1985). There, the
Superior Court found that:
“a sanction order entering judgment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
4019(c)(3) is not subject to a petition to open. There is no
authority in the rules for such a petition, and orderly practice
suggests that there should be none.”
In that case, the appeal was found to be interlocutory since the
judgment entered was for liability, damages to be determined at
a later date.
In the instant case, the trial court entered judgment in a dollar
amount so that the judgment was final. Consequently, the appeal
time began to run from the date of the entry of the judgment and,
since no appeal was taken within 30 days from that date, the
instant appeal is not properly before us.
As was said in Miller Oral Surgery, Inc.
“a sanction order entering judgment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
4019(c)(3) is not subject to a petition to open. There is no
authority in the rules for such a petition, and orderly practice
suggests that there should be none.” In this respect, default
- 14 -
J-A06013-19
judgment entered pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(3) is
comparable to a judgment entered after hearing. A party
may request the court to reconsider a sanction order
entering a judgment, of course, but neither reconsideration
nor refusal to reconsider will transform an interlocutory
order into one that is final and appealable.”
Here, the order entered was not interlocutory since it
encompasses both liability and damages. However, the reasoning
remains the same, where, as here, the action was taken pursuant
to Pa.R.C.P. 4019(c) the order is not subject to attack by a petition
to open and/or strike a judgment.
Where, as here, a trial court has entered a sanction order for both
liability and damages, the judgment then being final, the
appropriate method for review would be an appeal within the time
prescribed by Pa.R.App.P. 903. The attempt to raise an
appealable issue by filing a petition to open the judgment will not
be allowed.
Livolsi, 495 A.2d at 1385.15
Turning to the present matter, in accordance with Livolsi, Tri-State
Garden previously complied with precedence by filing an appeal; however,
that appeal was deemed untimely by this Court and was quashed. Tri-State
Garden now attempts to circumvent that decision by filing a petition to open
the judgment. Such an attempt, to raise an appealable issue by filing a
____________________________________________
15 See also Simpson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 504 A.2d 335 (Pa. Super. 1986)
(en banc); Edney v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 514 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 1986).
- 15 -
J-A06013-19
petition to open judgment based on discovery sanctions, is prohibited.16 See
id. Accordingly, we are compelled to quash this appeal.17
In a related matter, in its appellee’s brief, Tinsman requested that this
Court award it reasonable costs, attorney’s fees, and delay damages pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 2744.18 See Tinsman’s Brief at 12-14. Based on the unique
____________________________________________
16 See Trial Court Opinion, 8/14/2018, at 9-10 (“In the present case, upon
consideration of the history recited above and the evidence and argument
presented at the hearing on June 5, 2018, the court was not persuaded that
the advocacy of [Tinsman’s] counsel on behalf of her client in any way
constituted a fraud upon either [the trial court] or [Tri-State Garden]. The
court was, on the contrary, constrained to conclude, as contended by
[Tinsman], that [Tri-State Garden]’s petition to open represented an
impermissible ‘attempt to circumvent the appellate court’s decision to quash
[Tri-State Garden]’s untimely appeal.’ In this context, [Tri-State Garden]’s
petition was incompatible with the proscription against utilizing a petition to
open to challenge an appealable monetary judgment entered as a discovery
sanction, the doctrine of res judicata, and the doctrine of the law of the
case.”).
17 Based on our disposition, we need not address the merits of Tri-State
Garden’s argument further.
18 Rule 2744 states:
In addition to other costs allowable by general rule or Act of
Assembly, an appellate court may award as further costs damages
as may be just, including
(1) a reasonable counsel fee and
(2) damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum in addition
to legal interest,
if it determines that an appeal is frivolous or taken solely for delay
or that the conduct of the participant against whom costs are to
be imposed is dilatory, obdurate or vexatious. The appellate court
- 16 -
J-A06013-19
procedural nuance of this appeal, it is not apparent to us that Tri-State
Garden’s “appeal is frivolous or taken solely for delay” or that its conduct is
“dilatory, obdurate or vexatious.” Pa.R.A.P. 2744. Accordingly, we deny
Tinsman’s request for reasonable costs, attorney’s fees, and delay damages.
Appeal quashed. Tinsman’s request for reasonable costs, attorney’s
fees, and delay damages denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 09/24/2019
____________________________________________
may remand the case to the trial court to determine the amount
of damages authorized by this rule.
Pa.R.A.P. 2744.
- 17 -