Hidden Ridge Condominium v. Sabatino, P. ( 2023 )

J-A25039-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
HIDDEN RIDGE CONDOMINIUM : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ASSOCIATIONS, INC., A : PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA NON-PROFIT :
CORPORATION, AND JILL WANZIE, :
TOM BURICH, KATHLEEN RAUSCHER, :
KAREN LOFE AND COREY SIGLER, AS :
TRUSTEES AD LITEM OF THE :
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE HIDDEN :
RIDGE CONDOMINIUM : No. 873 WDA 2021
ASSOCIATION, ON THEIR OWN :
BEHALF OF ALL THE OTHERS :
SIMILARLY SITUATED :
:
:
v. :
:
:
P. RONALD SABATINO A./K/A :
RONALD SABATINO , SCIOTO :
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A :
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION AND :
T&R PROPERTIES, INC., AN OHIO :
CORPORATION. :
:
:
APPEAL OF: SCIOTO CONSTRUCTION :
COMPANY :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 16, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
No(s): GD-08-021879
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: MARCH 9, 2023
Scioto Construction Company (Scioto) appeals from the judgment
entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas after the trial court
granted Hidden Ridge Condominium Associations, Inc.’s (Hidden Ridge)
J-A25039-22
petition to enforce a settlement agreement. The court awarded damages to
Hidden Ridge in the amount of $220,874.25 and struck a quitclaim deed
recorded by Scioto on October 13, 2017, rendering Scioto responsible for the
on-going maintenance of a stormwater detention facility on the subject parcel
until such time that it is dedicated to and accepted by the township. On
appeal, Scioto argues the trial court erred by entering summary judgment in
favor of Hidden Ridge when: (1) genuine issues of material fact remained;
(2) the court failed to hold a trial or evidentiary hearing on Scioto’s affirmative
defenses; (3) Hidden Ridge’s contract action is barred by the statute of
limitations; (4) the damages award is unsupported by competent evidence;
(5) the damages award contradicts the court’s prior ruling which was
overturned on appeal; and (6) the language of the settlement agreement
either did not require the township’s acceptance of the stormwater detention
facility or was ambiguous as to that term. For the reasons below, we vacate
the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.
The tortured procedural history of this litigation began in 2008,
generated one trial on an unrelated issue, and has resulted in four prior
appeals to this Court. By way of background, “Scioto developed a
condominium project in South Park Township, Allegheny County.” Hidden
Ridge Condominium Assoc. v. Sabatino,1 1272 WDA 2018, 1307 WDA
____________________________________________
1P. Ronald Sabatino is the managing member of Scioto and T & R Properties,
which was also a named defendant in the original action. See Settlement
Agreement & Release, 9/24/12, at 2.
-2-
J-A25039-22
2018, 1642 WDA 2018, 1692 WDA 2018 (unpub. memo. at 4) (Pa. Super.
Oct. 1, 2019) (footnote omitted). In 2008, Hidden Ridge, on behalf of itself
and all unit owners, initiated a civil action against Scioto and several other
related defendants, asserting claims for, inter alia, unpaid condominium fees,
breach of contract, breach of warranties, and misappropriation of funds. See
Hidden Ridge’s Amended Complaint in Equity & Civil Action Including Class
Action Allegations, 11/4/09, at ¶¶ 66-81, 96-135, 144-50. However, as the
trial court explains: “The crux of that litigation concerned the ramifications of
the [condominium] plan’s designation as a ‘non-flexible’ . . . plan rather than
a ‘flexible plan[,]’” which resulted in Scioto’s obligation to pay condominium
fees. Trial Ct. Op., 11/8/21, at 7. The issue of the unpaid fees proceeded to
a jury trial,2 and on June 4, 2012, the jury entered an award in favor of Hidden
Ridge in the amount of $251,725. Id. Scioto filed an appeal to this Court,
which affirmed the judgment. Hidden Ridge v. Sabatino v. J.R. Gales &
Assoc., 1992 WDA 2012 (unpub. memo.) (Pa. Super. Dec. 18, 2013).
Meanwhile, on September 24, 2012, the parties entered into a
Settlement Agreement and Release, by which Scioto agreed to pay Hidden
Ridge $650,000 to resolve the remaining outstanding claims. See Settlement
Agreement & Release at ¶ 1.1. In addition, and relevant to the matter herein,
____________________________________________
2 Scioto filed an appeal from a prior order of the trial court which granted
partial summary judgment. This Court quashed that appeal as interlocutory.
See Hidden Ridge v. Sabatino v. J.R. Gales & Assoc., 79 WDA 2012
(unpub. memo.) (Pa. Super. Feb. 10, 2012).
-3-
J-A25039-22
the Settlement Agreement also included the following paragraph pertaining to
the completion of construction of the development:
1.3 Scioto Build-Out. Scioto has built only 161 of the 181
condominium units created by the Declaration and the Parties
agree that the remaining 20 un-built Units shall be built (the “Build
Out Units”). Scioto will commence construction on the Build Out
Units no later than April 14, 2013, or as soon thereafter as
conditions permit, and shall substantially complete such
construction of the Build Out Units by December 31, 2014, and
further agrees that the permanent storm water detention
facilities shall be completed and dedicated to South Park
Township by December, 2014. All construction shall be
completed in accordance with the Developer’s Agreement with
South Park Township, the Declaration and the Plans of Hidden
Ridge, including, but not limited to, the completion of all
permanent storm water detention facilities, as required by
the applicable law, and including, but not limited to, the
Ordinances of the Township of South Park and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As to the completed
Common Areas and Units, the Scioto Defendants shall have no
obligation to complete, fix and/or repair any other alleged
deficiency described by the Releasing Parties in the Hidden Ridge
Action.
Settlement Agreement & Release at ¶ 1.3 (some emphases added).
On January 20, 2015, Hidden Ridge filed a Petition to Enforce Settlement
Agreement, asserting Scioto failed to complete the permanent stormwater
detention facility and dedicate it to South Park Township by December 2014,
as required in the Settlement Agreement. Hidden Ridge’s Petition to Enforce
Settlement Agreement, 1/20/15, at 2-3 (unpaginated). On February 17,
2015, the trial court entered an order granting the petition, and directing
Scioto as follows:
Scioto . . . shall complete construction of the permanent
stormwater detention facilities and take the appropriate steps to
-4-
J-A25039-22
have the facilities dedicated to and accepted by the
Township, without further delay weather permitting. Should
Scioto fail to satisfy any of these obligations by June 30, 2015
[Hidden Ridge] may then proceed with a Motion for Sanctions and
request the entry of such sanctions as the court deems
appropriate, including an award of reasonable attorney fees and
any other reasonable costs associated with the construction
and/or acceptance of the stormwater facilities.
Order, 2/17/15 (emphases added).
Almost three years later, on January 22, 2018, Hidden Ridge filed a
motion for sanctions. See Hidden Ridge’s Motion for Sanction, 1/22/18. It
asserted that Scioto “blatant[ly] disregard[ed]” the trial court’s February 2015
order and, additionally, “allowed the condition of the pond to deteriorate” such
that it was in “need of repair to satisfy the requirements of the Township[.]”
Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. Additionally, Hidden Ridge alleged the “downspouts and lines
which are in place to convey stormwater” to the pond were “in need of repair
. . . to satisfy the Township standards for acceptance of the permanent
stormwater detention facilities.” Id. at ¶ 9.
The trial court conducted a contempt hearing on April 11, 2018. Hidden
Ridge presented testimony concerning the deterioration of various drainage
pipes throughout the development leading to the stormwater detention pond,
and whether those pipes were part of the permanent stormwater detention
facilities contemplated in the Settlement Agreement. See N.T., 4/11/18, at
7-11, 45-47, 64, 85. Scioto presented evidence, inter alia, that a South Park
Township ordinance “expressly” stated the Township “will not accept the
dedication of storm water detention and/or management systems.” Id. at 38
-5-
J-A25039-22
(emphasis added); see also id. at 59. Two days later, the court entered an
order, and accompanying memorandum, finding Scioto was in contempt of the
court’s February 17, 2015, order. The court concluded “it was clearly
established that the first formal attempt [by Scioto] to obtain approval from
South Park Township for [the stormwater] detention facility was an email
dated November 19, 2015[,]” almost five months after the court’s extended
deadline. Trial Ct. Memo., 4/13/18, at 2 (unpaginated). The trial court also
noted that Scioto presented evidence that the South Park Township zoning
ordinance — which was in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement —
provided the Township would “not accept dedication of or accept a dedicated
storm water facility.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the court scheduled
a hearing “on the appropriate nature and/or amount of a sanction(s) to be
imposed[.]” Order, 4/13/18.
The sanctions hearing proceeded on July 25, 2018. Hidden Ridge’s
witnesses testified that it would cost $130,000 to replace the deteriorating
pipes and drains, and $88,000 to bring the “existing storm water retention
basin” to an acceptable standard for “dedication by a municipality.” N.T.,
7/25/18, at 41-42, 47-48, 57. Hidden Ridge also presented evidence that a
permanent stormwater detention facility would incur “annual expected
maintenance costs” of $5,000 to $10,000. Id. at 60. Lastly, Hidden Ridge
presented evidence that on October 13, 2017 — without Hidden Ridge’s
knowledge or approval — Scioto recorded a quitclaim deed to the parcel of
land upon which the stormwater detention pond was located. See id. at 16.
-6-
J-A25039-22
For its part, Scioto presented conflicting testimony that it would cost $20,240
“to bring [the] pond up to standards[.]” Id. at 108, 123.
On August 1, 2018, the trial court entered an order directing Scioto to
pay Hidden Ridge $39,283.05, to “restore the pond/water detention facility to
a functioning condition.” Order, 8/1/18. The court also explicitly stated:
“From the payment of said $39,283.05 forwards the responsibility of the
maintenance and repair of the pond/water detention facility shall be with”
Hidden Ridge. Id. In an accompanying memorandum opinion, the trial court
acknowledged that while the Settlement Agreement required Scioto to
dedicate the stormwater detention facility to South Park Township, “[i]t
became apparent . . . that South Park Township does not accept for dedication
or accept generally a storm water facility.” Trial Ct. Memo., 8/1/18, at 2
(unpaginated). Therefore, the court noted “there is an impossibility in terms
of performance[.]” Id. The court recognized Hidden Ridge’s position that
Scioto should have requested an exception to the ordinance, which “some
witnesses” stated was not “an unusual thing to do[.]” Id. However, it
observed “there was no proof offered by Hidden Ridge that such an exception
would have been granted.” Id.
On August 8, 2018, Hidden Ridge filed a motion to mold the award,
requesting the court award both counsel and expert witness fees. In the
meantime, Scioto appealed from the court’s contempt and sanction orders,
and Hidden Ridge filed a cross-appeal. Thereafter, on October 23, 2018, the
trial amended its August 1, 2018, order “to reflect that in addition to the award
-7-
J-A25039-22
of $39,283.05,” it was awarding Hidden Ridge counsel and expert witness fees
for a total award of $62,507.65. Order, 10/23/18. Scioto filed another appeal
from this order, and Hidden Ridge cross-appealed. Both appeals and cross-
appeals were consolidated for disposition.
On October 1, 2019, a panel of this Court reversed the contempt order
and vacated both sanctions orders. See Hidden Ridge Condominium
Assoc., 1272 WDA 2018 et al. (unpub. memo. at 4). Specifically, the panel
concluded that, while the record supported the trial court’s determination that
Scioto “failed to complete its work in timely fashion,” the trial court did not
make any finding that Scioto acted willfully or with wrongful intent as is
required to hold a party in civil contempt. See id. at 12-13. Relevant to the
present appeal, the panel included the following footnote in its decision:
Of course, to the extent Hidden Ridge may conclude that Scioto
has not met its obligations under the Settlement Agreement, it
may file a separate, revised and/or amended Petition to Enforce,
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. . . .
Id. at 10 n.6 (record citation omitted).
Following this Court’s decision, on October 14, 2019, Hidden Ridge filed
an amended petition to enforce the Settlement Agreement, asserting Scioto
breached the terms of the Agreement and requesting damages “appropriate
to place Hidden Ridge in the position they would have been in if the Settlement
Agreement was not breached[,]” including striking the quitclaim deed. Hidden
Ridge’s Motion for Oral Argument & Hearing Date/Amended Petition to Enforce
Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Superior Court Opinion of October 1, 2019,
-8-
J-A25039-22
10/14/19 (Amended Petition to Enforce), at 2, 5-6 (unpaginated).3 Hidden
Ridge asserted that it had “already presented substantial evidence” and
developed the record at the two prior evidentiary hearings. Id. at 5
(unpaginated). However, it asked the court to “schedule argument and/or a
hearing for purposes of assessing damages as described [in the petition] and
. . . in the prior hearings, and then enter a final Order on the Petition . . .
awarding such damages.” Id. at 6 (unpaginated).
On October 29, 2019, the trial court granted Hidden Ridge’s amended
petition and directed the parties to appear for oral argument on December 17,
2019. Order, 10/29/19. The court further stated: “Thereafter, a
determination will be made as to the scheduling of a hearing for purposes of
entering a Final Order on the Petition to Enforce the Settlement Agreement.”
Id.
Meanwhile, on December 16th, Scioto filed a memorandum in opposition
to Hidden Ridge’s amended petition. Scioto argued, inter alia, that “[t]he
summary procedure and relief proposed by Hidden Ridge [was] inconsistent
with the procedural posture of this matter, and with Scioto’s substantial
rights.” Scioto’s Memorandum in Opposition to Hidden Ridge’s Amended
Petition to Enforce, 12/16/19, at 4. Rather, Scioto insisted the trial court
conduct a “full adversarial proceeding to determine the parties’ rights under
the Settlement Agreement,” including several affirmative defenses and
____________________________________________
3 Hidden Ridge filed a second, identical motion on October 29, 2019.
-9-
J-A25039-22
counterclaims Scioto intended to assert. See id. at 4-6. Indeed, Scioto
maintained that Hidden Ridge was required to file a new breach of contract
action to obtain relief, rather than pursue its claims via an amended petition
to enforce.4 See id. at 4-5.
On December 17, 2019, the trial court entered an order which, once
again, granted Hidden Ridge’s amended petition, and directed Scioto to file a
reply “setting forth any defenses [it] intend[ed] to raise” within 30 days.”
Order, 12/17/19, at 1 (unpaginated). The court provided Hidden Ridge with
30 days to respond, and scheduled a hearing for April 2 and 3, 2020, at which
time “the parties may offer additional witnesses to supplement the record . .
. so that this matter may be finally decided” based upon the record from the
prior two hearings and any supplemental testimony. Id. at 2 (unpaginated).
Scioto filed an answer to Hidden Ridge’s petition, raising several
affirmative defenses including the statute of limitations, failure to state a
claim, mutual mistake, impossibility, unclean hands, and setoff,5 and
____________________________________________
4 Scioto does not pursue this argument on appeal.
5 Scioto also filed a separate complaint at Docket No. GD 19-017623 (2019
Action), asserting Hidden Ridge was “inappropriately suspending the voting
rights maintained by Scioto” — the same argument asserted in its affirmative
defense of unclean hands. See Trial Ct. Op. at 12; Scioto’s Answer &
Affirmative Defenses to Hidden Ridge’s Amended Petition to Enforce, 1/16/20,
at 8-11. That lawsuit was subsequently consolidated with the present matter.
See Order, 2/19/20. Thereafter, Scioto filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction in the 2019 Action. However, on July 1, 2020, the trial court
entered an order sustaining preliminary objections filed by Hidden Ridge in
the 2019 Action, and dismissing Scioto’s complaint. See Order, 7/1/20.
- 10 -
J-A25039-22
requesting entry of judgment in its favor. See Scioto’s Answer & Affirmative
Defenses to Hidden Ridge’s Amended Petition to Enforce at 5-13. Hidden
Ridge filed a motion seeking to strike the defenses filed by Scioto, which the
trial court denied by order entered July 1, 2020. Order, 7/1/20. The court
also directed: “The parties may conduct discovery through 8/31/2020; after
which the parties and the court shall determine the appropriate forum for
resolution of the matters in this petition, i.e. hearing or argument.” Id.
On January 15, 2021, Hidden Ridge filed a motion for scheduling order.
It noted that the parties completed discovery per the court’s July 1st order,
and the “matter [was] in a position to be placed in line for a determination.”
Hidden Ridge’s Motion for Scheduling Order, 1/15/21 at 2 (unpaginated).
Further, Hidden Ridge averred that the record had been developed “as a result
of the prior hearings” and recent depositions, such that the claims could be
resolved “by way of dispositive motion[;]” it stated that Scioto’s counsel
agreed “by email [that] some or all of the claims” could be resolved in that
____________________________________________
Scioto appealed to this Court, which quashed the appeal because the trial
court did not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, or rule on Scioto’s motion
for a preliminary injunction. See Scioto v. Hidden Ridge, 806 WDA 2020,
807 WDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Nov. 20, 2020).
Subsequently, Scioto requested permission to file an amended
complaint in the 2019 Action. On March 11, 2021, the trial court granted
Scioto’s request, but stayed “all matters” in the 2019 Action “pending
resolution” of the present matter. Order, 3/11/21.
- 11 -
J-A25039-22
manner.6 Id. Less than two weeks later, on January 28, 2021, the trial court
entered an order granting Hidden Ridge’s motion. Order, 1/28/21. Relevant
herein, the court directed:
As a record has been developed in this case, the pending Petition
to Enforce Settlement Agreement as well as the claims of Scioto .
. . raised in their Answer and Defenses shall be initially considered
by way of dispositive motion. Either party may file a dispositive
motion [followed by a response]. Thereafter, if the matter is not
resolved as a result of the dispositive motion(s), either party may
file an additional motion requesting a final hearing be scheduled,
and such a Motion will be considered by the Court at that time.
Id.
Subsequently, on May 21, 2021, Hidden Ridge filed a dispositive motion
concerning the issues of liability and damages, and Scioto filed a brief in
opposition on July 8, 2021. Scioto argued, inter alia, that a hearing was
required so that it could present its defenses to Hidden Ridge’s breach of
contract argument, which were not relevant at the time of the contempt and
sanctions hearings. See Scioto’s Brief in Opposition to Hidden Ridge’s
Dispositive Motion as to the Issues of Liability & Damages, 7/8/21, at 7-8.
See also id. at 3 (“The Court must hear testimony, review pertinent
documentary evidence and solicit arguments on the factual and legal issues
raised in Scioto’s Answer and New Matter before it can resolve Hidden Ridge’s
claims.”).
____________________________________________
6 We note that this purported email from Scioto’s counsel is not included in
the certified record.
- 12 -
J-A25039-22
The trial court declined to conduct a hearing, and just over a week later,
on July 16, 2021, entered the following order:
[U]pon consideration of [Hidden Ridge’s] Dispositive Motion in the
Nature of Summary Judgment as to the issue of Liability and
Certain Damages, and any response thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.
Judgment is entered in this case against Scioto and in favor
of [Hidden Ridge] in the amount of $220,874.25 and the Quitclaim
Deed which Scioto recorded on or about October 13, 2017 . . . is
hereby ordered to be stricken such that Scioto shall remain
responsible for the on-going and continued maintenance of the
subject parcel until such time as Scioto petitions the Court based
upon the Township agreeing to accept and dedicate the subject
stormwater facilities.
Order, 7/16/21, at 1-2 (unpaginated). Scioto filed this timely appeal.7
____________________________________________
7 On August 9, 2021, the trial court ordered Scioto to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Scioto complied and
filed its concise statement on August 30, 2021. The trial court then filed a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on November 8, 2021.
We note that on October 7, 2021, this Court issued Scioto a rule show
cause why the appeal should not be quashed. See Show Cause Order,
10/7/21. We observed that the trial court’s July 16th order granted summary
judgment as to only “certain damages” and the trial court later entered an
order on this docket granting an injunction. See id. at 1 (unpaginated).
Scioto replied to the show cause order explaining: (1) although the court
purported to award “certain damages,” it, in fact, awarded all relief requested
by Hidden Ridge; and (2) the injunction issued on September 21, 2021,
related to the separate 2019 action filed by Scioto at Docket No. GD 19-
017623. See Scioto’s Response to Rule to Show Cause, 10/20/21, at 1-3.
Scioto explained that the 2019 Action was stayed pending resolution of this
action, which originated in 2008. Id. at 1. After this matter was resolved via
the court’s July 16th order, Scioto filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
in the 2019 Action. Id. Because these matters were consolidated, the court
entered an order granting the injunction under both docket numbers. Id.
However, Scioto insisted that the injunction relates only to the 2019 Action,
- 13 -
J-A25039-22
Scioto presents the following six issues for our review:
I. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, entering
summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact
remained in dispute[?]
II. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, entering
summary judgment without holding a trial or evidentiary
proceeding on (or addressing) Scioto’s affirmative
defenses[?]
III. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, allowing
Hidden Ridge to pursue a cause of action for breach of
contract more than four years after Hidden Ridge alleges the
breach occurred[?]
IV. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, awarding
damages unsupported by — and in fact contrary to — the
evidence[?]
V. Whether, after this Court reversed and vacated the [trial]
court’s contempt order and awards, the [trial] court erred
as a matter of law or abused its discretion by contradicting
in dramatic fashion its previous findings and conclusions
regarding the proper remedy to place the parties where they
would have been had the contract been capable of
performance[?]
VI. Whether the [trial] court erred as a matter of law entering
summary judgment against Scioto for breach of contract
notwithstanding contract language that is unambiguous or,
alternatively, is ambiguous but without hearing evidence
bearing on the parties’ intent[?]
Scioto’s Brief at 3 (some capitalization removed).
____________________________________________
and “[t]here are no issues remaining in the 2008 Action, from which the
instant appeal is taken[.]” Id. at 4-5. Following Scioto’s response, this Court
discharged the show cause order. See Order, 10/7/21. Upon our review, we
agree the trial court’s July 16, 2021, order is final and appealable as to the
action commenced in 2008.
- 14 -
J-A25039-22
Scioto’s first two claims focus on the trial court’s failure to conduct a
hearing following Hidden Ridge’s amended petition to enforce the Settlement
Agreement, and Scioto’s response. In its first issue, Scioto argues that Hidden
Ridge’s “Dispositive Motion” was, essentially, a motion for summary
judgment, which “attempted to resolve . . . numerous factual disputes
presented by the evidence[.]” Scioto’s Brief at 33. However, it maintains that
genuine issues of material fact remain, which preclude the entry of summary
judgment. See id. at 39. Similarly, in its second issue, Scioto contends the
trial court improperly entered judgment without permitting Scioto the
opportunity to present evidence on its “fact-laden affirmative defenses[.]” Id.
at 42. Nor, as it further claims, did the court address any of the proposed
defenses in the order granting Hidden Ridge’s motion, or Rule 1925(a)
opinion. See id. Because we agree the trial court erred by entering judgment
in favor of Hidden Ridge without permitting Scioto the opportunity to present
evidence of its proposed defenses, we are constrained to vacate the order on
appeal, and remand for further proceedings.
Preliminarily, we note that despite the summary nature of this
proceeding — including the trial court’s own designation of its order as
granting Hidden Ridge’s “Dispositive Motion in the Nature of Summary
Judgment”8 — we do not view this matter as an appeal from an order granting
summary judgment pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2.
____________________________________________
8 See Order, 7/16/21, at 1 (unpaginated).
- 15 -
J-A25039-22
Rather, our review of a trial court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement
is well-settled:
When reviewing a trial court’s decision to enforce a settlement
agreement, our scope of review is plenary as to questions of law,
and we are free to draw our own inferences and reach our own
conclusions from the facts as found by the court. However, we
are only bound by the trial court’s findings of fact which are
supported by competent evidence. The prevailing party is entitled
to have the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to its
position. Thus, we will only overturn the trial court’s decision
when the factual findings of the court are against the weight of
the evidence or its legal conclusions are erroneous.
Salsman v. Brown, 51 A.3d 892, 893–94 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation
omitted).
Here, however, based upon the undeveloped record and the trial court’s
summary opinion,9 we are unable to determine whether the court’s factual
findings are supported by competent evidence. Although we recognize the
trial court relied upon the testimony presented at both the April 11, 2018,
contempt hearing, and July 25, 2018, sanctions hearing, neither of these
proceedings focused on the critical issue raised here — whether Scioto
____________________________________________
9 Although the trial court’s opinion is 21 pages, the court devoted the first
seven pages to rehash the contempt proceeding in detail, criticize this Court’s
2019 decision vacating the contempt order, and express its frustration that
“[t]here have been no consequences imposed for Scioto’s thirteen (13) years
of failures in completing the Hidden Ridge Condominium projects; at least
none approved by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.” See Trial Ct. Op. at
1-7. The next nine pages recount the lengthy procedural history of this
matter. See id. at 7-16. In fact, the trial court declined to address the 13
issues Scioto presented in its Rule 1925(b) statement because it concluded
they were “extraneous, repetitive, and in instances, disingenuous.” Id. at 19
(footnote omitted).
- 16 -
J-A25039-22
breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement (as opposed to the court’s
February 2015 order), and if so, whether Scioto can establish a defense to
excuse its breach. We recognize that the trial court was attempting to
streamline this dispute, which has, admittedly, been languishing in the courts
for far too long. However, in doing so, the court precluded Scioto from having
the opportunity to prove its affirmative defenses. No matter how well-
intentioned the trial court may be, this Court cannot countenance the
deprivation of due process rights.
Furthermore, to the extent the trial court determined it could dispose of
the claims on the record before it, its failure to detail any factual findings in
either its July 16th order or Rule 1925 opinion undermines our ability to
determine if its factual findings are supported by the record. In fact, the trial
court’s substantive discussion of Scioto’s claims consists of the following:
[T]he parties entered into a valid, written Settlement Agreement
in which the parties bargained in exchange for consideration;
specifically, Scioto was to accommodate Hidden Ridge’s valid
complaints of water retention problems due to inadequate
construction in exchange for a release from litigation by Hidden
Ridge. The objective was to place the parties in the same position
they would have enjoyed if the Settle[ment] Agreement had been
adhered to.
After reliable testimony delivered by competent and
comparable experts; that testimony and evidence assessed by this
[c]ourt, and it was determined that the total damages necessary
to compensate Hidden Ridge for Scioto’s failure to complete the
water retention plan in compliance with Township code pursuant
to the parties[’] 2012 Agreement and Release was $220,874.25.
* * *
- 17 -
J-A25039-22
The trial court was tasked with determining an amount of
damages that would make Hidden Ridge whole, i.e., by restoring
them to the same financial position they would have enjoyed
pursuant to the parties’ own intentions as evidenced by the
Settlement Agreement. This [c]ourt’s award did not include
maintenance costs of the pond into perpetuality or dedications
that have been deemed impossible. . . . or any other of the
errantly supplied justifications for the award by Scioto. The [t]rial
[c]ourt simply determined that it would take $220,874.25 to do
what Scioto legally obligated themselves to do to resolve this
litigation.
Trial Ct. Op. at 20-21 (footnote omitted).
In particular, we note that the trial court did not specify how it arrived
at the damages award of $220,874.25. See Trial Ct. Op. at 15-16, 20. While
Hidden Ridge insists the evidence presented at the July 25th sanctions hearing
supports the court’s award, we note that following that hearing, the trial court
initially sanctioned Scioto only $39,283.05. See Hidden Ridge’s Brief at 49;
Order, 8/1/15. An explanation about how the trial court arrived at a figure
roughly $180,000 more than the original award would be helpful on appeal.
Even more confusing is the issue of the quitclaim deed. In its July 16th
order, the trial court directed that the deed be stricken “such that Scioto shall
remain responsible for the on-going and continued maintenance of the subject
parcel until such time as Scioto petitions the Court based on the Township
agreeing to accept and dedicate the subject stormwater facilities.”
Order, 7/16/21, at 1-2 (unpaginated) (emphasis added). However, in its
opinion, the court declined to address the quitclaim issue. Trial Ct. Op. at 19
(footnote omitted). Moreover, the trial court insisted that its damages award
“did not include maintenance costs of the pond into perpetuity or dedications
- 18 -
J-A25039-22
that have been deemed impossible[.]” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). It further
noted: “Any ‘adoption’ of the water retention system by South Park was . . .
ruled an impossibility and inoperable[.]” Id. at 20 n.10. This appears to
contradict the court’s order directing Scioto to maintain the pond until it is
dedicated to and accepted by the Township — which the court recognizes is
an “impossibility.” Id.
Accordingly, at this juncture, we are constrained to vacate the judgment
in favor of Hidden Ridge and remand for further proceedings. Because of our
disposition, we need not address Scioto’s remaining claims, which all relate to
the evidence, or lack thereof, supporting the trial court’s ruling. See Scioto’s
Brief at 43 (trial court ignored statute of limitations defense); 44 (damages
award was not supported by evidence); 48 (trial court contradicted its prior
evidentiary findings after this Court’s reversal of contempt order); 52
(settlement agreement either did not require, or was ambiguous, as to
whether Township had to accept dedication of stormwater detention facility).
We emphasize that our ruling does not require a hearing on matters addressed
at the prior hearings. Rather, the trial court may limit any new hearing to
evidence and testimony not previously presented.
Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judge Nichols joins this memorandum.
Judge Kunselman files a dissenting memorandum.
- 19 -
J-A25039-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/9/2023
- 20 -