Pennsylvania Superior Court Cases - Superior Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Superior Court - unoffical reports

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

J. A03002/02
2002 PA Super 122
RAYMOND E. COSSELL and CHARLOTTE :
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
COSSELL, his wife,
:
PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellees
:
:
v.
:
:
J. SCOTT CORNISH,
:
:
Appellant
:
No. 1237 WDA 2001
Appeal from the Order entered July 16, 2001
in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
Civil Division, at No. 311 of 2001 GD
BEFORE: DEL SOLE, P.J., BOWES and KELLY, JJ.
OPINION BY DEL SOLE, P.J.:
Filed: April 23, 2002
¶ 1
J. Scott Cornish appeals from an order which denied his petition to
open a confessed judgment as untimely. We reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
¶ 2
The events leading to the order presently on appeal arose out of a
commercial real estate transaction. Problems arose and Appellant withheld
two monthly payments leading Appellees to file a complaint and confession
of judgment in ejectment. Judgment was entered and a writ of possession
was issued. Appellant filed a petition to open the judgment and a petition
for preliminary injunctive relief. Since it appeared during the hearing on
that petition that the parties had come to an agreement, the Honorable
Conrad B. Capuzzi dismissed the petition to open without prejudice.
Problems again arose and, on May 23, 2001, the parties resumed the
hearing on preliminary injunctive relief before the Honorable John F.

J. A03002/02
Wagner, Jr. Following that hearing, Judge Wagner, entered an order which
stated, inter alia, "[Appellees] are enjoined from seeking immediate issuance
of a writ of possession for sixty (60) days to permit [Appellant] to represent
his Petition to Open Judgment Confessed Under Installment Land Contract,
filed on February 15, 2001, which petition was dismissed, without
prejudice...." Order, 5/23/01. On June 26, 2001, Appellant refiled the
petition to open judgment and a hearing was set for July 16, 2001.
Appellees filed an answer which contained a motion to dismiss the petition to
open as untimely. At the conclusion of the hearing on July 16, Judge
Capuzzi entered an order dismissing Appellant's petition as untimely. This
appeal followed.
¶ 3
Although Appellant sets forth three issues in his Statement of
Questions Involved, the essence of this appeal is whether Judge Capuzzi's
dismissal of Appellant's Petition to Open was contrary to Judge Wagner's
order and therefore violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule and/or the law of
the case doctrine.1 We agree with Appellant that it was error to dismiss his
petition to open.

1 The law of the case doctrine has traditionally been applied where an
appellate decision has already been rendered. In Commonwealth v. Starr,
664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995), our Supreme Court stated :
we today assume the coordinate jurisdiction rule and all its
attendant meanings and limitations expressed in our previous
caselaw into our law of the case doctrine in an effort to
standardize and streamline the law to which our courts must
refer when considering prior rulings of courts of coordinate
- 2 -

J. A03002/02
¶ 4
The coordinate jurisdiction rule provides that judges sitting in the
same court and in the same case should not overrule the decisions of each
other. Okkerse v. Howe, 556 A.2d 827 (Pa. 1989). Only in exceptional
circumstances can this rule be disregarded. Commonwealth v. Starr, 664
A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995). These circumstances are defined as a substantial
change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute involved or where
the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice
if followed. Id.
¶ 5
The trial court did not find, and Appellees do not argue, that this case
is an exception to the rule. Rather, they claim that Judge Wagner's order
did not explicitly grant Appellant an extension of time beyond that set forth
in Pa.R.C.P. 2959(a)(3) (petition to open must be filed within 30 days of
notice). Such an argument simply does not comport with a common sense
reading of Judge Wagner's order. There is no reason for Judge Wagner to
have entered an order enjoining issuance of a writ of possession for sixty
days "to permit [Appellant] to represent his Petition to Open Judgment
Confessed Under Installment Land Contract" if he did not intend to grant
Appellant the full 60 days within which to refile his petition. Moreover,

jurisdiction and of courts of appellate jurisdiction in the same
litigated matter.
Starr, 664 A.2d at 1333.
Thus, our analysis is the same whether it is called the coordinate jurisdiction
rule or the law of the case doctrine.
- 3 -

J. A03002/02
Judge Wagner made clear at the hearing that such was his intention: "I'm
going to give you 60 days to re-file your petition to open judgment." N.T.,
5/23/01, at 143. Thus, Appellees knew that this was Judge Wagner's
intention and their attempt to evade his order cannot be countenanced.
Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing Appellant's petition to open as
untimely and remand for further proceedings.2
¶ 6
Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.

2 Appellees make the alternative argument that Appellant's petition did not
sufficiently allege a meritorious defense. Since no record has been
developed on that claim, and the trial court did not rule on that basis, we
believe it is appropriate that this claim be presented to and decided by the
trial court on remand.
- 4 -