Rest Haven York v. Deitz, C. ( 2014 )

J-S46017-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
REST HAVEN YORK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
CAROL A. DEITZ
Appellee No. 426 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered February 4, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Civil Division at No(s): 2012-SU-004797-86
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2014
Rest Haven York (Rest Haven) appeals from the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of York County granting summary judgment in favor of
Appellee, Carol A. Deitz. After careful review, we affirm, although for
different reasons than those set forth by the trial court.1
Rest Haven is a rehabilitation and nursing facility to which Helen
the admitting papers as agent under a power of attorney executed by
Boring. Boring remained a resident of Rest Haven until her death on July
____________________________________________
1
Commonwealth v. Miller, 787 A.2d 1036, 1038
(Pa. Super. 2001) (citation omitted).
J-S46017-14
14, 2012. When she died, Boring had $55,301.06 in unpaid bills from Rest
Haven.
On November 30, 2012, Rest Haven filed a complaint against Deitz
alleging breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
$55,301.06. Deitz filed an answer to the complaint on December 24, 2013.
On September 11, 2013, Deitz moved for summary judgment and requested
the court to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
On January 16, 2014, the trial court held oral argument on the matter,
and on February 4, 2014, it granted summary judgment in favor of Deitz.
The court determined that Rest Haven failed to establish the elements
necessary to sustain a cause of action on any of the counts alleged in the
complaint.
This timely appeal followed, in which the sole issue is whether the trial
each of duty to support.
judgment is well-settled:
A reviewing court may disturb the order of the trial court only
where it is established that the court committed an error of law
or abused its discretion. As with all questions of law, our review
summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated
in the summary judgment rule. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. The rule
states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law,
summary judgment may be entered. Where the non-moving
-2-
J-S46017-14
party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely
rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary
-moving party to adduce sufficient
evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which it bears
the burden of proof . . . establishes the entitlement of the
moving party to judgment as a matter Young v.
PennDOT, 744 A.2d 1276, 1277 (Pa. 2000). Lastly, we will
view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact must be resolved against the moving party.
Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418, 429 (Pa.
2001) (citations omitted).
[T]he issue as to whether there are no genuine issues as to any
material fact presents a question of law, and therefore, on that
question our standard of review is de novo. This means we need
not defer to the determinations made by the lower tribunals. To
the extent that this Court must resolve a question of law, we
shall review the grant of summary judgment in the context of
the entire record.
Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152, 1159 (Pa. 2010)
(citations omitted).
The trial court based its finding that Deitz owed no duty of support to
her late mother on its interpretation of section 4603 of the Domestic
Relations Code, which provides, in relevant part:
§ 4603.
(a) Liability.
(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), all of the
following individuals have the responsibility to care for and
maintain or financially assist an indigent person, regardless of
whether the indigent person is a public charge:
***
(ii) A child of the indigent person.
-3-
J-S46017-14
***
(2) Paragraph 1 does not apply in any of the following cases:
(i) If an individual does not have sufficient
financial ability to support the indigent person
***
(c) Procedure. A court has jurisdiction in a case under this
section upon petition of:
(1) an indigent person; or
(2) any other person or public body or public agency
having any interest in the care, maintenance or assistance of
such indigent person.
23 Pa.C.S. § 4603(a), (c).
In an opinion issued simultaneously with its February 4, 2014 order,
Boring was at any time declared indigent or that [Deitz] has been assigned
itz
owed no duty of support to her late mother. See Trial Court Opinion,
2/4/14, at 7. However, as Rest Haven correctly points out in its brief, a
prior declaration of indigence is not necessary in order to state a cause of
action for breach of duty to support. See Brief of Appellant, at 10.
In Healthcare & Retirement Corp. of America v. Pittas, 46 A.3d
insufficient to provide adequately for her maintenance and support. We
-4-
J-S46017-14
Id. at
724. Accordingly, it is clear that in Pittas we did not require the nursing
Neither the language of section 4603 nor case law indicates that a
party c
has been a prior declaration of indigence. Accordingly, we conclude that the
trial court erred as a matter of law when it ruled to the contrary.
Nevertheless, for the following reasons we determine that the trial court
properly granted summary judgment in favor of Deitz.
After reviewing the record, it is clear that Rest Haven failed to provide
evidence that could have allowed the trial court to declare Boring indigent.
If Rest Haven had provided sufficient evidence to allow the trial court to
declare Boring indigent, the trial court would have committed reversible
error because summary judgment would have been inappropriate. Such was
not the case here.
Rest Haven attached to its complaint the contract signed by Deitz, on
See Complaint, 11/30/12, Exhibits A and B. Neither of these documents
constitutes sufficient evidence for the purpose of a declaration of indigence
nor for establishing a duty to support. See Pittas, supra.
-5-
J-S46017-14
To present competent evidence to prove indigence, Rest Haven should
have provided a bank statement or similar documentation attesting to
See Pittas, supra at 724 (bank statement
trial court to find mother indigent). See also Presbyterian Medical
Center v. Budd, 832 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Super. 2003) (nursing home had valid
claim against daughter under support law because nursing home presented
she was under care of nursing home).
plaintiff is not able to overcome a motion for summary judgment by the
person upon whom it seeks to impose liability. In the case sub judice, Rest
Haven provided no such evidence. A copy of an overdue statement of
fficient evidence to
establish indigence. See Pittas, supra.
own care and maintenance. Indigent includes, but is not limited to, those
who are completely destitute and helpless. Indigent encompasses those
[with] limited means, but whose means are not sufficient to adequately
Savoy v. Savoy, 641 A.2d
596, 599 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citing Verna v. Verna, 432 A.2d 630, 633 (Pa.
1981)). Rest Haven failed to adduce evidence that could have aided the
-6-
J-S46017-14
court in determining that Boring did not have sufficient means to provide for
her own support.
Even though the trial court misinterpreted the support statute, the
order of summary judgment in favor of Deitz is still appropriate because
Rest Haven failed to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to its
case. See Murphy, supra.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/22/2014
-7-