Goshen Valley III Condominium Assoc. v. M.R. Messick & L.R. Messick

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Goshen Valley III Condominium :
Association, :
Appellant :
: No. 1391 C.D. 2021
v. :
: Submitted: July 22, 2022
Marjorie R. Messick and :
Laurie R. Messick :
BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: July 25, 2023
Goshen Valley III Condominium Association (Association) appeals from
the October 22, 2021 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial
court) that found in favor of the Association and awarded the Association $500.00 in
attorney’s fees, instead of the $20,000.00 it sought. Also before this Court is the
Application to Quash filed by Appellees Marjorie R. Messick and Laurie R. Messick
(Appellees). For the following reasons, we grant the Application to Quash and quash
the appeal.
1. Factual and Procedural Background
Appellees own a condominium in the Goshen Valley III Condominium
(Condominium), which is composed of 294 units, including both townhouse-style units
and small garden apartment units. The Association is the entity responsible for
maintaining the Condominium and enforcing the Uniform Condominium Act1 (Act)
and the Condominium’s By-Laws and Declaration. The buildings with apartment-style
units are a shared living environment, with Condominium’s residents living in close
proximity to one another. Dogs may be kept at the Condominium, provided that they
are not a nuisance to the community and that residents comply with the Rules and
Regulations of the Association and general notions of decency and decorum.
For a number of years, Appellees kept dogs at their garden apartment-style
unit. Their most recent dog barked incessantly. After receiving numerous complaints,
Appellees were invited to attend a meeting where they had an opportunity to explain
their position with respect to the complaints about their dog. After that meeting,
however, the behavior of their dog did not improve, and the disturbances continued
unabated. Multiple residents complained to the Association about their dissatisfaction
with the presence of the dog, and investor owners reported complaints by their tenants,
with one tenant choosing to vacate the Condominium because of the disturbances
caused by the dog.
In October 2020, the Association filed a civil complaint, seeking an
injunction to prohibit Appellees from keeping the dog at the Condominium.
(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 5a.) The Association also sought reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs pursuant to the Act.2 Id. at 11a. The trial court held a hearing on the
1
68 Pa. C.S. §§ 3101-3414.
2
Section 3311(a)(3) of the Act, titled “Tort and contract liability,” provides:
If the tort or breach of contract occurred during any period of declarant
control (section 3303(c)), the declarant is liable to the association for
all unreimbursed losses suffered by the association as a result of that
tort or breach of contract, including costs and reasonable attorney’s
fees.
(Footnote continued on next page…)
2
Association’s Petition for Preliminary Injunction on December 10, 2020. After hearing
testimony from the community manager and other witnesses at the preliminary
injunction hearing, the trial court ordered that the dog could not be kept at the
Condominium. Id. at 192a-93a. Appellees did not obey the preliminary injunction. At
one point, the dog was forcibly removed by Animal Control, only to be retrieved by
Appellees and returned to the Condominium. Thereafter, the trial court reinforced its
order with additional orders in an effort to get Appellees to comply: an Order for
Contempt, an Order to Enforce Preliminary Injunction, and an Order for Further Relief.
The matter was added to the trial pool on September 7, 2021. Id. at 3a.
On June 14, 2021, the Association filed its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law. Id. at 219a-20a. On October 22, 2021, the case was called for trial, at which
time the parties presented a Stipulation for Final Hearing, which allowed the trial court
to utilize the record from the preliminary injunction hearing. In support of its claim for
reasonable expenses under the Act, the Association presented an affidavit of its
attorney, Hal Barrow, detailing $22,771.00 in legal fees and $403.75 in court costs it
incurred. Id. at 207a-20a.
On October 22, 2021, the trial court entered a final order in favor of the
Association, which provided as follows:
FINAL ORDER
AND NOW, this 22 day of October, 2021, this case having
been scheduled for trial, and upon consideration of the record
developed at the preliminary injunction hearing(s) held in
this matter and the Stipulation for Final Order submitted by
the parties, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED:
68 Pa. C.S. § 3311(a)(3).
3
1. A permanent injunction is entered and [appellees] may not
keep their dog, a Shih-Tzu named either “Sweetie Pie” or
“Cutie Pie,” at Goshen Valley III Condominium. The
defendants may keep a dog (but not their current dog) at the
Condominium, provided that any such dog is not a nuisance
to the community and they comply with the Rules &
Regulations of the Association and general notions of
decency and decorum.
2. Judgment is entered in favor of Goshen Valley III
Condominium Association and against [appellees] Marjorie
R. Messick and Laurie R. Messick in the amount of $500.00.
Id. at 233a.
The Association now appeals and argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by awarding only $500.00 in attorney’s fees. Before we consider the merits
of the Association’s appeal, we must first address Appellees’ Application to Quash.
2. Application to Quash
Appellees contend that the Association’s appeal to this Court should be
quashed because the Association failed to file post-trial motions within ten days of the
trial court’s October 22, 2021 order, in accordance with Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1(c), which
provides: “post-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after (1) verdict, discharge
of the jury because of inability to agree, or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or (2)
notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision in the case of a trial without jury.”
Appellees argue that the Association failed to file post-trial motions and, therefore, has
waived all of the issues in this appeal.
“Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1 requires parties to file post-trial motions in order to
preserve issues for appeal. If an issue has not been raised in a post-trial motion, it is
waived for appeal purposes.” L.B. Foster Co. v. Lane Enterprises, Inc., 710 A.2d 55,
4
55 (Pa. 1998). “Only issues which a party specifically raises in its post-trial motions
are preserved and will be considered on appeal.” Burrell Education Association v.
Burrell School District, 674 A.2d 348, 350 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). “The purpose for Rule
227.1 is to provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct errors in its ruling and
avert the need for appellate review.” Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491, 494 n.9 (Pa.
2002); Jackson v. Kassab, 812 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Super. 2002);3 Weir by Gasper v. Ciao,
528 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. 1987), aff’d, 556 A.2d 819 (Pa. 1989). In order to fully
effectuate such purpose, any issue raised in a motion for post-trial relief must be briefed
and argued to the trial court. Browne v. Department of Transportation, 843 A.2d 429(Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Our Supreme Court has held that the post-trial motion
requirements set forth in Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1 are mandatory in both law and equity
matters. Chalkey, 805 A.2d at 497. Under Rule 227.1, a party must file post-trial
motions at the conclusion of a trial in any type of action in order to preserve claims that
the party wishes to raise on appeal. In other words, a trial court’s order at the
conclusion of a trial, whether the action is one at law or in equity, simply cannot
become final for purposes of filing an appeal until the court decides any timely post-
trial motions. Id. at 496. See also Coal Tubin’ PA, LLC v. Cambria County Transit
Authority, 162 A.3d 549, 553 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017); P.S. Hysong v. Lewicki, 931 A.2d
63, 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Liparota v. State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, 722 A.2d
253, 256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).
Here, the October 22, 2021 order from which the appeal was taken was a
final order entered after trial without a jury. As outlined above, Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1
3
Although Superior Court cases are not binding on this Court, such cases may offer persuasive
precedent where they address analogous issues. Commonwealth v. Monsanto Co., 269 A.3d 623, 679
n.20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). The Superior Court cases cited herein are relied on for their persuasive
value.
5
applies to non-jury trials. Consequently, when the Association failed to file post-trial
motions within 10 days following the trial court’s October 22, 2021 order, the issues it
sought to raise in its Concise Statements of Errors Complained of on Appeal were
waived.
The Association nevertheless attempts to convince this Court that the
October 22, 2021 proceeding was not a non-jury trial, and, thus, there was no
requirement that post-trial motions be filed. It submits that there was no actual trial
because the parties had submitted a Stipulation for Final Hearing. It asserts that the
focus of the proceedings was solely on the Association’s “post-trial request” for an
award of attorney’s fees. (Appellant’s Answer to Application to Quash Appeal, at 1.)
It argues that the trial court’s order concerning attorney’s fees was a “secondary” and
“post-trial” issue that did not trigger Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1. Id. at 2. This Court is not
convinced.
First, we reject the Association’s contention to the extent it claims that
there was no actual trial because the parties filed a Stipulation for Final Hearing. A
case may be submitted to the trial court on stipulated material facts. Our Supreme
Court has held that “orders following trials on stipulated facts must be treated just like
orders following other trials, i.e., in both situations, parties who wish to appeal must
first file post-trial motions.” Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pinkerton, 830 A.2d
958, 964 (Pa. 2003). As such, even though the parties filed a Stipulation for Final
Hearing, the Association was required to file post-trial motions to preserve its claims
on appeal.
We also reject the Association’s claim that the October 22, 2021
proceeding, to the extent that it concerned the Association’s demand for attorney’s fees
and costs, was not a trial proceeding but rather a post-trial/post-judgment proceeding.
6
Again, Section 3311(a)(3) of the Act requires the trial court to award an association
“all unreimbursed losses suffered by the association as a result of that tort or breach of
contract, including costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” 68 Pa. C.S. § 3311(a)(3).
Because attorney’s fees and costs are a measure of damages under the Act, any award
of such must be included the final verdict, as was done here.
In all respects, this matter proceeded as a non-jury trial and the trial court’s
disposition was consistent with a non-jury verdict. Accordingly, in order to preserve
any issues for appellate review, the Association was required to file post-trial motions,
and its failure to do so necessitates quashal. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co.
Appeal quashed.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Goshen Valley III Condominium :
Association, :
Appellant :
: No. 1391 C.D. 2021
v. :
:
Marjorie R. Messick and :
Laurie R. Messick :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 2023, Marjorie R. Messick’s and
Laurie R. Messick’s Application to Quash is GRANTED. The appeal of Goshen
Valley III Condominium Association is hereby QUASHED.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge