Preview:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Amrit Lal, Appellant v. Borough of Kennett Square, Marita Hutchinson, Esquire, and Gawthrop, Greenwood & Halsted, P.C. : : : : : : : :

No. 1114 C.D. 2001 Submitted: August 31, 2001

BEFORE: HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH, Judge HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Judge HONORABLE JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge OPINION BY JUDGE SMITH FILED: November 8, 2001

Before this Court is yet another appeal by Amrit Lal concerning the apartment complex known as Scarlett Manor Apartments ( Scarlett Manor). Lal appeals from three orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County that granted the motion for summary judgment of Gawthrop, Greenwood and Halsted, P.C. (Gawthrop), granted the motion for summary judgment of Maria Hutchinson and sustained the preliminary objections of the Borough of Kennett Square (Borough) to the tort claims filed by Lal. Lal contends that the trial court erred in granting the motions for summary judgment because outstanding legal and factual issues existed in the case and because he was not given a chance to conduct discovery. Lal contends that the trial court erred in sustaining the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer because he set forth a cause of action upon which relief might be granted. Finally, Lal contends that the Honorable Thomas G. Gavin ought to have recused himself from the matter.

This appeal represents the continuation of approximately a decade of litigation by Lal involving Scarlett Manor, first to avoid compliance with the Maintenance Building Code of Kennett Square (Code) and then to avoid the consequences of his noncompliance. Lal purchased Scarlett Manor in March 1988, at which time the buildings were apparently in a good state of repair and free of any Code violations. Throughout Lal's ownership of Scarlett Manor he received hundreds of citations for Code violations, resulting in a multiplicity of litigation. In December 1993 the trial court appointed Hutchinson as an agent for Lal to manage Scarlett Manor in order to bring it into compliance with the Code. On April 3, 1997, Lal conveyed all of his interest in Scarlett Manor to his son, A. Roby Lal; however, the trial court's order appointing Hutchinson remained in effect. On November 28, 1997, A. Roby Lal transferred his interest in Scarlett Manor to Richard and Donna Everts pursuant to a court-approved stipulation between Lal, A. Roby Lal, the Borough, Hutchinson and the Everts allowing transfer of the property free of the encumbrances and restrictions of the appointment order. Lal initiated the instant case by filing a writ of summons on November 30, 1999 followed by a complaint on February 28, 2000, asserting tort claims to recover losses for Appellees' alleged mismanagement of Scarlett Manor while the appointment order was in effect. On June 19, 2000, the trial court granted Gawthrop's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action as to that party. On December 19, 2000, the trial court granted the Borough's

preliminary objections and dismissed all claims against the Borough with prejudice. On the same day, the trial court granted Hutchinson's motion for

summary judgment and ordered all claims against her be stricken with prejudice.

2

On January 11, 2001, the trial court denied Lal's motion for reconsideration of the two orders of December 19, 2000. The trial court explained in a footnote: [Lal's] claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because all of the claims have either been raised or could have been raised in prior litigation. Furthermore, as [Lal] was not a successful party in either prior contempt action, he cannot recover for wrongful use of civil proceedings under 42 Pa. C.S.A.

Download 1114cd01.pdf

Pennsylvania Law