BURR v. CALLWOOD
374 Pa.Super. 502 (1988)
543 A.2d 583
Carol BURR, Appellee, v. Darrell CALLWOOD and Cheryl Callwood, Appellants.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Filed June 13, 1988.
Deborah L. Lesko, Bethel Park, for appellee.
Before OLSZEWSKI, TAMILIA and KELLY, JJ.
In this landlord/tenant action, the defendants, Darrell and Cheryl Callwood ("Tenants") appeal an order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Carol Burr ("Landlord"). The issue presented is whether a defendant who files a counterclaim in a district justice action properly
On January 15, 1987, Landlord filed a district justice complaint against Tenants, seeking to recover rents allegedly due under a residential lease agreement and possession of the property. On January 20, 1987, Tenants filed a district justice complaint against Landlord, seeking $2,000.00 plus costs; the complaint stated that "[p]laintiff [Tenant] is suing for breach of implied warranty of inhabitability [sic] and intentional infliction of emotional distress." On February 10, 1987, following a hearing, the district justice entered two separate judgments. On the claim brought by Landlord against Tenants, the district justice entered judgment in Landlord's favor for $1,168.50. On the claim brought by Tenants against Landlord, the district justice entered judgment in favor of Landlord and against Tenants. A standard notice appeared on each judgment notification, informing the parties that any appeal must be filed within 30 days.
Tenants filed a timely appeal to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, with rule upon Landlord to file a complaint, from the judgment entered on the claim of Landlord against Tenants. Tenants at no time appealed the adverse judgment entered on their claim against Landlord. In response to the rule to file complaint, Landlord filed a complaint, again seeking the rent and late payment charges
On May 18, 1987, Landlord filed a motion for summary judgment on the complaint and the counterclaim. The motion alleged that Tenants were collaterally estopped from presenting a breach of implied warranty of habitability claim, since the issue was previously determined in Landlord's favor in the claim of Tenants against Landlord, and Tenants had not appealed that determination. Since the sole defense alleged for non-payment of rent was a breach of the implied warranty of habitability, Landlord claimed she was entitled to judgment on the claim for rent as a matter of law. As for the counterclaim, Landlord alleged she was entitled as a matter of law to retain the Tenants' security deposit in light of Tenants' admitted non-payment of rent. By order dated June 16, 1987, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment on the complaint and the counterclaim. This appeal by Tenants followed.
On appeal, Tenants allege that (1) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the Landlord's claim, since Tenants' appeal from the district justice level entitled Tenants to relitigate all issues de novo in the court of common pleas; (2) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Landlord on Tenants' claim for return of the amount equal to double the security deposit, since Tenants had a possibly meritorious defense for the failure to pay rent — breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
Tenants first challenge the order granting summary judgment in favor of Landlord on the underlying claim of
In granting Landlord's motion for summary judgment on the underlying claim, the trial court reasoned that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to prevent Tenants from asserting their sole defense to non-payment of the rent, the claim that Landlord had breached the implied warranty of habitability. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the determination of a fact in a prior action is deemed conclusive between the parties in a subsequent action even though the cause of action is different, where the fact was actually litigated in the prior action, was essential to the judgment in the prior action, and was determined by a valid and final judgment. Oaklane Shopping Center v. Flame,
On appeal to this Court, Tenants argue that their counterclaim before the district justice was "for damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from Landlord's breach of implied warranty of habitability." (Appellant's Brief at 10). Tenants assert that the district justice may have denied their counterclaim for failure to prove all the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress rather than a failure to prove the elements of breach of implied warranty of habitability. Tenants assert that the issue of the breach of implied warranty of habitability was not necessarily actually litigated in the district
Examination of Tenants' complaint filed in the district justice action reveals that Tenants asserted they were entitled to damages on two separate and independent causes of action: intentional infliction of emotional distress and a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
In their second challenge to the order granting judgment in favor of Landlord on the underlying complaint, Tenants allege that they preserved all issues raised at the district justice level by filing an appeal from the judgment entered on the Landlord's complaint. According to Tenants, the mere fact that a counterclaim asserted in a district justice action must be included on a separate complaint form does not result in the counterclaim becoming a separate action from the underlying claim. Moreover, Tenants compare the situation to an arbitration case, and they point out that a counterclaimant in a common pleas arbitration case needs only to appeal the adverse result entered on the underlying claim in order to preserve the issues raised on the counterclaim. Again, we reject appellants' contentions.
Preliminarily, we note that appellants' district justice/arbitration analogy ignores several formal yet significant differences between a counterclaim presented at the
More importantly, the rules of procedure regulating appeals from district justices clearly treat the decisions entered at the district justice level as separate judgments, and require the counterclaimant at the district justice level to appeal the adverse judgment entered on the counterclaim in order to preserve the issues raised in the counterclaim for appeal. Pa.R.D.J. No. 1004(C) sets forth the procedure to be followed for appeals from the district justice:
The rule clearly treats the judgments entered on the two cross-complaints as separate judgments; the rule requires any party who wishes to challenge an adverse judgment to appeal that judgment. The rule makes no mention of any circumstances where a separate notice of appeal is not required. A party who wishes to challenge the findings made in reaching the adverse judgment must file a notice of appeal from that judgment.
Here, the appellants were counterclaimants in the action before the district justice. They failed to file a notice of appeal from the adverse judgment entered on their claim. Thus, they failed to preserve that claim for appeal, and the judgment became final. The trial court properly determined that the appellants were bound by the issues necessarily determined in reaching the final judgment. Under the principle of collateral estoppel, Tenants were precluded from raising the issue of the breach of implied warranty of habitability.
Tenants also challenge the award of summary judgment in favor of Landlord on the Tenants' counterclaim made at the district justice level, which requested return of an amount equal to double the security deposit. Appellants contend that because the Landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability, Tenants were justified in withholding the rent such that a non-payment of rent did not occur, and Tenants were entitled to return of the security deposit. As we determined in Section I, supra, however, because Tenants failed to appeal the adverse judgment, they are
Accordingly, the judgment entered in favor of appellee is affirmed.
- No Cases Found