Carney, J. v. Kathardekar, V.

J-A23042-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JAMES T. CARNEY, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
VINIT KATHARDEKAR AND :
USHA RISHI, :
:
Appellees No. 67 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered December 17, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): GD-12-021292
BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2016
James T. Carney (Carney) appeals from order entered December 17,
2015, granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Vinit Kathardekar
and Usha Rishi (collectively, Appellees). After careful review, we affirm.
The pertinent factual and procedural history of this case has been
summarized by the trial court as follows.
From July of 2007 through May of 2011, [Carney], in his
capacity as an attorney, provided various estate planning
services to the late Dr. Drupadi Bhagwanani [Dr. Bhagwanani]
and her husband. In January of 2011, during the course of
[Carney’s] services, [Carney], Dr. Bhagwanani, and her husband
reached an oral agreement that [Carney] would waive his estate
planning fees in exchange for Dr. Bhagwanani naming him in her
will as the contingent executor (her husband would be the first
executor) or a contingent co-executor. And likewise, Dr.
Bhagwanani’s husband would name [Carney] as same in his will.
[Carney’s] estimation is that the 5% of the gross estate he
would have received as executor/co-executor would have
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23042-16
amounted to $375,000. In May of 2011, [Carney] mailed Dr.
Bhagwanani an updated will naming [Carney] as co-executor of
her estate. As late as August of 2011, [Carney] was unsure
whether Dr. Bhagwanani had executed the May 2011 will, and
[Carney] has not averred that it was ever executed.
In July 2011[,] Dr. Bhagwanani was diagnosed with
cancer. Shortly after the diagnosis, Dr. Bhagwanani’s friend
[Appellee] Usha Rishi moved in to care for both Dr. Bhagwanani
and her husband, who was bed ridden at the time. In July of
2011, when Rishi’s son-in-law, [Appellee] Vinit Kathardekar, was
visiting Dr. Bhagwanani, she asked Kathardekar, an attorney, to
draft a will for her. Kathardekar declined on the basis that
estate planning was not his area of practice. Ultimately,
attorney Lloyd Welling was retained to draft a will for Dr.
Bhagwanani. On August 1, 2011, Dr. Bhagwanani executed a
will that named Kathardekar as the executor of her estate. On
September 30, 2011, Dr. Bhagwanani sent [Carney] a letter
terminating his services. On this basis, [Carney] initiated this
action alleging that [Appellees] conspired to displace him in the
will, and stating a claim for Tortious Inference with Contractual
Relations. On October 15, 2015, [Appellees] filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment, which [the trial court] granted on
December 17, 2015.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/2016, at 1-2.
This timely-filed appeal followed.1 Carney raises the following issues
on appeal, which we have reordered for ease of disposition.
I. Did the [trial court] err in finding that Carney presented no
evidence to show purposeful action on behalf of
[Appellees] specifically intended to harm the existing
relationship between Carney and his client?
II. Did the [trial court] deny Carney due process of law by
deciding the motion for summary judgment on the grounds
other than those raised by [Appellees]?
1
Both Carney and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-2-
J-A23042-16
III. Did the [trial court] err in granting summary judgment on
the ground that Carney could not prove actual damage
resulting from the interference?
IV. Did the [trial court] err in granting summary judgment on
the ground that [Appellees] were privileged to interfere
with the contractual attorney[-]client relationship between
Carney and his client?
Carney’s Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization and emphasis omitted).
We consider Carney’s issues mindful of the following.
Our standard of review on an appeal from the grant of a motion
for summary 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 is plenary.
In evaluating the trial court’s decision to enter 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 nonmoving party bears the burden
of proof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or
answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a
non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue
essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof
establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a
matter of law. Lastly, we will review 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.
Krauss v. Trane U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d 556, 562-63 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(quoting Shepard v. Temple University, 948 A.2d 852, 856 (Pa. Super.
2008)).
The following principles guide our review if this matter.
-3-
J-A23042-16
In order to successfully advance a cause of action for intentional
interference with contractual relations, appellant must
demonstrate the following: (1) the existence of a contractual
relationship; (2) an intent on the part of the defendant to harm
the plaintiff by interfering with that contractual relationship; (3)
the absence of a privilege or justification for such interference;
and (4) damages resulting from the defendant’s conduct.
Small v. Juniata College, 682 A.2d 350, 354 (Pa. Super. 1996).
On appeal, Carney argues the trial court erred in finding that Carney
did not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the second element of
the aforementioned tort. Carney’s Brief at 22. First, Carney avers “it is
undisputed that [on August 1, 2011, Appellees were] aware that [Dr.
Bhagwanani] had an ongoing relationship with an attorney.” Id. at 23.
Carney argues that this alone is sufficient to show Appellees knowingly
interfered with a contractual relationship. Id. at 23-26. Furthermore,
Carney contends the trial court erred in failing to consider all factors set
forth in Restatement (Second) Torts, section 767, and ignoring “critical
pieces of evidence.”2 Id. at 26-28.
In response, the trial court offered the following analysis:
To satisfy the second element of a claim for intentional
interference of contractual relations, [a plaintiff] must prove that
a defendant “acted for the specific purpose of causing harm to [a
plaintiff.]” [Carney] has pled that [Appellees] acted with the
intent of “furthering their own interests.” [Carney] has not
2
In his brief, Carney sets forth three critical pieces of evidence: (1) an
excerpt of the deposition of David Groetsch, Dr. Bhagwanani’s financial
advisor; (2) evidence that Appellee Kathardekar had seen the will drafted by
Carney, with Carney’s name on it; and (3) an affidavit from Carney that
avers he received a call from Kathardekar demanding he turn over all files
relative to Dr. Bhagwanani. Carney’s Brief at 27-28.
-4-
J-A23042-16
averred or offered any proof that [Appellees] had knowledge of
[Carney’s] arrangement to waive his fees and that displacing
him as an executor of Dr. Bhagwanani’s estate would lead to
[Carney] effectively having performed his estate planning
services for free. Therefore, [Carney] has not averred or offered
proof that [Appellees] acted with the intent of harming him, and
therefore has failed to satisfy the second element of his claim.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/9/2016, at 3 (citations removed).
The trial court’s findings are supported by the record. While Carney
impassionedly argues that Appellees were aware of the attorney-client
relationship between himself and Dr. Bhagwanani, he has failed to provide
evidence that would demonstrate Appellees were aware that Carney had an
agreement to provide free legal services in exchange for being named as an
executor of Dr. Bhagwanani’s estate. Not only has Carney failed to produce
such evidence, he admitted he did not have any facts or information to
suggest that Appellees were aware of such an arrangement.
[Appellees’ Counsel]: Do you have any facts or information that
Usha Rishi was aware of the oral agreement that you allegedly
entered into with [Dr, Bhagwanani] in January of 2011.
[Carney]: No.
[Appellees’ Counsel]: Do you have any information that Vinit
Kathardekar was aware of the oral agreement that you had,
allegedly, with [Dr. Bhagwanani] in January of 2011?
[Carney]: No.
[Appellees’ Counsel]: Do you have any reason to dispute that
the first time Usha Rishi and Vinit Kathardekar became aware of
this alleged oral agreement that you had with [Dr. Bhagwanani]
in January of 2011 is when you filed your complaint against
them?
-5-
J-A23042-16
[Carney]: I have no evidence to the contrary. They were
certainly aware, however, of my relationship with Dr.
[Bhagwanani], an attorney[-]client relationship.
Deposition of James Carney, 4/17/2015, 103-104.
Here, merely knowing that there is an existing attorney-client
relationship is not enough to prove that Carney and Dr. Bhagwanani’s
unorthodox arrangement was known by Appellees. As such, Carney is
unable to demonstrate that Appellees’ had the specific intent to harm Carney
by depriving him of the benefit of the oral agreement he entered into with
Dr. Bhagwanani.3 Thus, Carney’s claim fails. See Glenn v. Point Park
College, 272 A.2d at 899 (“It must be emphasized that the tort we are
considering is an intentional one: the actor is acting as he does [for] the
purpose of causing harm to the plaintiff.”).
Because we find the trial court did not err in concluding that Carney
failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that Appellees had a specific intent
to cause Carney harm, we find the remainder of his issues raised on appeal
moot. See, e.g., Pappas v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 856 A.2d 183,
186 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted, emphasis added) (“[A] defendant
may establish a right to summary judgment by demonstrating the plaintiff’s
3
We further note that all three “critical pieces of evidence,” cited supra,
involve interactions that occurred in mid to late August, 2011. Dr.
Bhagwanani signed the will displacing Carney as executor on August 1,
2011. Therefore, the “critical evidence” provided by Carney does not
provide any proof that Appellees were aware of the existing will or
agreement when they assisted Dr. Bhagwanani in drafting and signing a new
one.
-6-
J-A23042-16
inability to show an element essential to his claim. If the plaintiff fails to
contravene the defendant’s claim with evidence raising a factual dispute as
to that element, the defendant is entitled to entry of judgment as a matter
of law.”).
Having concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting
Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, Carney is entitled to no relief from
this Court.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/2/2016
-7-