From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Yan

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 6, 2015
No. 998 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 6, 2015)

Opinion

J-S63023-15 No. 998 EDA 2015

11-06-2015

JULIAN SMITH Appellant v. HUIJUN YAN Appellee


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered March 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): January Term, 2015 No. 3545
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., MUNDY, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.:

Appellant, Julian Smith, appeals from the trial court's March 17, 2015 order denying Appellant's petition to appeal nunc pro tunc from the January 31, 2014 judgment of default entered in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion.

This case arose as a result of an automobile accident that occurred on March 31, 2013, between Appellant and Appellee, Huijun Yan (Yan). Lower Merion Police Officer Jeffrey Calabrese investigated the accident, and issued a report in which he opined that "this crash was caused by [Appellant] entering his vehicle into a roadway without yielding the right of way to a vehicle already in the roadway." Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Police Crash Reporting Form, 3/31/13. Officer Calabrese issued a traffic citation to Appellant for vehicles entering a roadway. Id.

Less than two weeks later, on June 12, 2013, Yan filed a Statement of Claim with the Philadelphia Municipal Court, which listed Appellant's address as 5100 Lebanon Avenue, Apartment A1002, Philadelphia, PA 19131. This was the same address Appellant provided at the accident scene, and which Officer Calabrese listed in the accident report. Thereafter, in a succession of filings, Yan attempted service on Appellant. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/15, at 1-3 (detailing Yan's attempts at service). On January 31, 2014, default judgment in favor of Yan and against Appellant was entered in the amount of $12,182.60. Appellant did not appear during the Municipal Court proceedings. On January 28, 2015, he filed his petition to appeal nunc pro tunc from the January 31, 2014 entry of default judgment with the trial court in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On March 17, 2015, the trial court entered its order denying Appellant's petition to appeal nunc pro tunc. Appellant filed this timely appeal on April 1, 2015.

Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue.

Did the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County err i[n] refusing to allow Appellant[']s Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc when the dockets of the original Municipal Court litigation clearly show a "breakdown in the administrative
process", where Appellant[']s failure to timely file was due to excusable neglect, where Appellant did appeal within a short time after becoming aware of the Municipal Court judgment, where Appellant had a valid defense to the underlying claim and where, as a result of the above, Appellant clearly was denied his day in Court?
Appellant's Brief at 2.

"Allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc lies at the sound discretion of the [t]rial [j]udge." Nagy v. Best Home Servs., Inc., 829 A.2d 1166, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). The timeliness of an appeal, whether it is an appeal to an appellate court or a de novo appeal in common pleas court, is a jurisdictional question. Lee v. Guerin , 735 A.2d 1280, 1281 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted). Where a statute fixes the time within which an appeal may be taken, the time may not be extended as a matter of indulgence or grace. Id.

Here, it is undisputed that the trial court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 932. Furthermore, Philadelphia Municipal Court Rule of Civil Procedure 124 provides as follows.

A party aggrieved by a judgment for money ... may appeal therefrom within 30 days after the date of the entry of the judgment by filing with the prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas a notice of appeal together with a copy of the Municipal Court disposition sheet. The prothonotary shall not accept an appeal from an aggrieved party which is presented for filing more than 30 days after the date of judgment without leave of the Court of Common Pleas and upon good cause shown.
Phila. M.C.R. Civ.P. 124.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's petition to appeal nunc pro tunc. Moreover, the Honorable Nina Wright Padilla, sitting as the trial court, has authored a cogent opinion, citing both the record and applicable legal authority, such that further commentary by this Court is not warranted, and would be redundant. Judge Wright Padilla, inter alia, concluded that "[f]rom the record, it appears that any failure to serve was due to Appellant's own interference." Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/15, at 5. Judge Wright Padilla additionally observed as follows.

Appellant cannot claim that he "promptly filed" his appeal. Even assuming he did not have notice of the municipal court action at the time of its filing, the notice from PENNDOT regarding his license suspension was sent to him May 7, 2014. He appealed that notice May 29, 2014. The notice included the court term and number of the action resulting in [default] judgment. Consequently, Appellant was aware of said action at the very least as of May 29, 2014, though he did not file a petition to appeal nunc pro tunc until January 28, 2015, seven (7) months and thirty (30) days later.
Id. at 5-6.

Based on the foregoing, we find that Judge Wright Padilla has properly addressed and disposed of Appellant's issue on appeal in her May 21, 2015 opinion. We therefore adopt Judge Wright Padilla's opinion as our own in affirming the March 17, 2015 order.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/6/2015

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Smith v. Yan

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 6, 2015
No. 998 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Smith v. Yan

Case Details

Full title:JULIAN SMITH Appellant v. HUIJUN YAN Appellee

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Nov 6, 2015

Citations

No. 998 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 6, 2015)