Coulter, J. v. Coulter, J.

J-A27021-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JEAN COULTER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
JAMES P. COULTER
No. 2686 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order August 3, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): August Term, 2014, No. 01298
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PER CURIAM: FILED OCTOBER 03, 2016
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the certified record, and the
trial court’s opinion, we find that the trial court, the Honorable Lisette
Shirdan-Harris, has comprehensively addressed the issues Appellant raises
on appeal. We affirm based on that opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, filed
2/3/16.
Appellant’s “Motion for Recusal and Re-Assignment to a New Panel” is
denied and dismissed, it being replete with misrepresentations.
Order affirmed. Motion denied.
____________________________________________

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A27021-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/3/2016
-2-
Circulated 09/29/2016 09:49 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PIIILADELPIIIA COUNTY
FIRST .JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
JEAN COULTER PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
Case ID 140801298
Plaintiff
v.
.JAM~:S P. COlJLTER SUPERIOR COURT NO.:
2686 EDA 20 I 5
Defendant ooc'l,,.tJ.~0
i t~\V>
tt.~
OPINION f. e?,.~t?,.o
o~fO
Plaintiff Jean Coulter ("Plaintiff') files this direct appeal from the Trial Court's Order
issued on September I 0, 2015. denying Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration as to the Trial
Court's August 3, 2015 Order granting Defendant James P. Coulter's (''Defendant"s") Motion to
Transfer Venue. In accordance with the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. I 925. the Court submits the
following Opinion. For the reasons set forth herein, this Court's decision should be affirmed.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed this appeal in response to the Trial Court's denial of Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration. On November I I.2015. Plaintiff filed a Statement or Errors Complained or on
Appeal (''Statement of Errors"). Plain ti If. in her Statement of Errors. complain of the following:
J. The Court's action wos token without basis in either Statute or
Cose Low. as there ll'OS 110 evidence introduced with respect to
f.1111' potential witness (who ,,·011/d he capable 549 Pa. 200, 208. 70 I A.2d 156. 159
( 1997): Pa.R.C.P. I 006(d)( I).
A. The Trial Court's Order to deny Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration was taken with
basis and reference to applicable statutes and case law.
Plaintiff complains that the Trial Court failed to consider applicable statute and case law
when rendering its decision to deny her Motion for Reconsideration as to transferring venue from
Philadelphia County to Butler County. This statement of error is without merit.
In order to grant a defendant's motion to transfer venue. he must show oppressiveness
and vexation. Id at 209. 701 A.2d at 160. In order to prove such. the defendant must offer
evidence on the record that plainti fr s choice of venue was meant 10 harass the defendant. or
show that the chosen venue would be oppressive to the defendant. Id. at 213.701 A.2d at 162.
For example. the defendant may provide evidence that transferring venue would provide easier
access to witnesses and other evidence. Id.
For a case to transfer to a specific venue as demanded by the defendant. the venue must
have been one where the action could have originally been brought. Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)( I). J\n
4
action may be brought in any county (a) where the defendant may be served. (b) where the cause
of actions arose, (c) where a transaction or occurrence took place which gave rise to the cause of
action, or (d) in any county authorized by law. Pa.R.C.P. I 006(a)( I). Alternatively, the
transferred venue can be the location where the property which is the subject matter of the cause
of action is located. Pa.R.C.P. I 006(a)(2).
In the immediate matter. Defendant has properly addressed the vexatiousness of granting
venue in Philadelphia County. The traveling for Defendant and his witnesses would be over 300
miles. Defendant appropriately attached affidavits for all proposed witnesses (with exception of
his wife), all stating they reside and work within Ruller County. Although Plaintiff argues in her
Statements of Error that these witnesses are not capable or testifying to pertinent matters. many
of them could testify to Plaintiffs claims as to damages for costs associated with upkeep of her
mother's home (Donald Hark us Roof repair; Adam Lyon Gutter repair; J. Kevin Basham
Electrical Repair; and Corey Macefc Landscaping). As to Plaintiffs claim as to burglar) and
theft committed at the property. Defendant has listed Butler Chief or Police Ronald Brown to
testify. Defendant has listed witnesses that may testify as to various relevant issues. Therefore.
based on Defendant's representations. requiring Defendant and all of his witnesses to travel U\'Cr
300 miles would be oppressive.
Next. Pa. C.R.P. I 006(d)( I) requires the Trial Court to determine whether Butler County
is an appropriate venue for transfer. Butler County is an appropriate venue for transfer because
Defendant resides and works in Butler County. and therefore. could be served in Butler County.
Furthermore. all causes of action argued by Plaintiff in her Fifth-A mended Complaint arose out
of Butler County. Plaintiff did argue that the transaction relating to the breach of contract claim
did arise from Philadelphia. although no transaction actually occurred. The offer and check was
5
made and sent from Philadelphia by Plaintiff. although Defendant never accepted the offer. Such
an argument does not give rise to a requirement that the case must stay in Philadelphia. The
Trial Court found it extremely probative that many claims or action arose in Butler County and
also relate lo the location where the parties· deceased mothcrs property is situated in Butler
County. The fact that Plaintiff lived in Philadelphia for a period of time when these actions arose
does weigh in her favor; however. the Trial Court found the evidence presented by Defendant to
be more probative and oppressive. Therefore. the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. and the Appellate Court should affirm its Order.
R. The Trial CourlJ1J2Rropriatelv reviewed all filings associated with Dcfendants Motion to
Transfer Venue.
Plaintiff unintelligibly argues that the Trial Cou11 failed lo review or consider any and al I
filings by Plaintiff with regards to her responses to Defendant's Motion 10 Transfer Venue.
Plaintiff's statement of error is without merit.
Pia inti ff incorrectly bcl icves that because the Order Ii led by the Trial Court states "upon
consideration of Defendant's Motion to Transfer" and docs not mention that the Trial Court
considered Plaintiffs responses thereto. that Trial Court failed to read or consider Plaintiff's
responses. Pia inti ff is mistaken in her charge against the Trial Court. As the Trial Court does
v, ith every motion. objection. and trial. the Trial Court considered both Plaintiffs and
Defendant's filings related to the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue and Plaintiffs Motion
for Reconsideration prior to rendering a decision. The Trial Court understands and appreciates
Plaintiffs emotional devotion to the matters associated with this case: however. her assertion
that the Trial Court is biased toward Defendant or any defendant praying to transfer venue is
misguided. Therefore. the Appellate Court should find that no abuse of discretion by the Trial
6
Court occurred, and affirm the Trial Couris Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration.
C. No error of law or abuse of discretion was committed by the Trial Court when
wropriatelv relying UROn Defendant"s statements.
Plaintiff asserts that the Trial Court committed an error of law and abuse of discretion by
relying upon perjured statements filed by Defendant. This statement of error is without merit.
In her Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that every proposed witness's
affidavit "contained clearly perjured statements of 'oppressive venue." Plaintiff offers no actual
evidence that such affidavits are perjured. ff no actual evidence or perjury is offered. then the
weight of the testimony is a credibility question for the jury at trial. Therefore. the Court did not
commit error of law or abuse of discretion when appropriately relying upon Defendant" s
averments, witness affidavits. and Plaintiffs responses. and the Court's Order to deny Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration should be affirmed.
CONCLlJSION
For all of the foregoing reasons. the Court's Order to deny Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration related to the granting of Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue should be
affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
Date: February 3.2016
Lisette Shirdan-Harris, J.
7