Nova Home Health v. Koutroulis, P. ( 2018 )

J-A10022-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NOVA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
PETER KOUTROULIS, UNITED :
HEALTH CARE, LLC, JOHN/JANE DOE :
1, AND JOHN/JANE DOE 2 : No. 2610 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered July 24, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): July Term, 2016 No. 0709
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JUNE 07, 2018
Appellant, Peter Koutroulis, appeals from the order granting the petition
of Appellee, Nova Home Health Care, Inc. (“Nova”), to enforce a settlement
agreement. Nova sued Koutroulis in tort alleging that while he was president
of Nova, Koutroulis surreptitiously started a competing business. The parties
engaged in settlement discussions that included a telephone conversation.
Koutroulis frames the issue in this appeal as, “Did this telephone conversation
create a binding settlement agreement?”1 The trial judge, the Honorable
Patricia A. McInerney, answered that question, “Yes.” We do as well, and we
affirm based on Judge McInerney’s Opinion.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Appellant’s Br. at 4.
J-A10022-18
We adopt Judge McInerney’s recitation of the factual and procedural
history of this case. Trial Court Opinion, filed 12/15/17, at 1-8.
Koutroulis argues on appeal that the telephone conversation did not
create an enforceable settlement agreement because Nova’s counsel “did not
unconditionally and absolutely accept” all terms of Koutroulis’s counteroffer.
Appellant’s Br. at 13. He maintains that during the phone conversation,
counsel only discussed two settlement terms and Nova’s counsel did not
during the call objectively manifest assent to all terms. Koutroulis also
contends that his lawyer’s statement that a particular term – that Nova drop
a demand for indemnification in exchange for Koutroulis’s agreement not to
seek certain documents regarding an Attorney General investigation – was
“reasonable,” did not constitute acceptance of that term. Koutroulis
additionally argues that the testimony of Nova’s counsel that she believed that
the parties had reached a settlement was not credible, when viewed in the
context of two other pieces of evidence.
We apply contract law to determine the enforceability of a settlement
agreement. Mastroni-Mucker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 976 A.2d 510, 517-18
(Pa.Super. 2009). Contract interpretation is a question of law, and our
standard of review of questions of law is de novo and our scope of review is
plenary. Id. We may reverse the trial court’s findings of fact only if they are
predicated on an error of law or are unsupported by the record. Id. at 518.
None of Koutroulis’s arguments has merit, and we affirm based on Judge
McInerney’s Opinion. Her Opinion sets forth her findings of fact that the parties
-2-
J-A10022-18
reached agreement on all material terms, one by one, over a series of
discussions, with agreement on the outstanding terms occurring during the
phone conversation. See Trial Court Opinion at 3-7. Judge McInerney
specifically found as a fact that the parties agreed during the call that Nova
would not require indemnification and Koutroulis would forgo his document
requests. Id. at 5. She thus treated defense counsel’s response that that term
was “reasonable” as an acceptance of the term, and not a mere statement of
personal opinion. Similarly, Judge McInerney stated in her Opinion that she
credited the testimony of Nova’s counsel and disbelieved all materially
inconsistent testimony. Id. at 7.
Each of Koutroulis’s arguments on appeal amounts to a challenge to
Judge McInerney’s factual findings and credibility determinations. However,
Judge McInerney’s findings are supported by the record and are not based on
any error of law. We therefore, as our standard of review requires, affirm them
and deny Koutroulis’s appeal.
Finally, we deny Nova’s Motion to Dismiss this appeal due to alleged
deficiencies in Koutroulis’s brief and in the reproduced record. Any such
failings did not significantly hamper our appellate review in this case.
Order affirmed. Motion to Dismiss denied.
-3-
J-A10022-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/7/18
-4-
Circulated 05/15/2018 02:42 PM
COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) D. KELLY 12/15/2017