The Altman Law Firm v. Williams, V.L. ( 2017 )

J-A06004-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
THE ALTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
V.L. LAURIE WILLIAMS
No. 2525 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-07155-CT
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and RANSOM, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MAY 31, 2017
Appellant, The Altman Law Firm, LLC (“the Law Firm”), sued a former
client, Appellee, V.L. Laurie Williams, alleging that she had failed to pay her
fees. A panel of arbitrators found in favor the Law Firm, but for only
$15,000, or slightly less than half of the amount the Law Firm requested.
The Law Firm appealed the arbitration award to the Court of Common Pleas.
After a bench trial, the court found in favor of the Law Firm, but reduced the
award even further, to the amount of $6,400.
The Law Firm did not file a timely motion for post-trial relief, resulting
in the waiver of issues the Law Firm desired to pursue on appeal. Twenty-
two days after judgment was entered, the Law Firm filed a motion
requesting post-trial relief nunc pro tunc. The trial court denied the motion,
and this timely appeal followed.
J-A06004-17
On appeal, the Law Firm argues that the trial court erred in denying it
permission to file a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc relief is
an exception to the general rule that deadlines are absolute. See Union
Elec. Corp. v. Bd. Of Prop. Assessments, Appeals & Review
of Allegheny Cty., 746 A.2d 581, 584 (Pa. 2000). As such, it is restricted
to cases where “extraordinary circumstances” have caused a litigant to lose
an important right. Id. (citation omitted).
We review the denial of nunc pro tunc relief for an abuse of the trial
court’s discretion. See Vietri ex rel. Vietri v. Delaware Valley High
School, 63 A.3d 1281, 1284 (Pa. Super. 2013). “An abuse of discretion
occurs when a trial court, in reaching its conclusions, overrides or misapplies
the law, or exercises judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or the
result of partiality, prejudice, or ill will.” Id. (citation omitted).
“Generally, in civil cases [nunc pro tunc relief] is granted only where
there was fraud or a breakdown in the court’s operations through a default
of its officers.” Union Elec. Corp., 746 A.2d at 584 (citation omitted).
However, such relief is also available in circumstances where the movant
demonstrates that (1) the deadline was missed due to “nonnegligent
circumstances,” (2) the required filing was made shortly after the deadline
expired, and (3) the opposing party was not prejudiced by the delay. Vietri,
63 A.3d at 1284 (citation omitted).
-2-
J-A06004-17
Here, the Law Firm asserts that hip surgery incapacitated its attorney,
Jonathan F. Altman, Esquire, shortly after the end of trial, and he was not
able to return to his office until after the deadline for filing post-trial motions
had expired. The trial court concluded that this excuse did not constitute
“nonnegligent circumstances:”
Instantly, Appellant has not claimed that counsel’s surgery was
unforeseen. Nor has it provided any information that counsel
attempted to arrange for substitute counsel to attend to his
cases during his post-surgery recovery. Thus, Appellant has
established neither fraud, nor a breakdown in the court’s
operations, nor non-negligen[t] happenstance causing
Appellant’s failure to timely file post-trial motions.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/4/16, at 3.
This Court has consistently held that where counsel was absent from
his office for an extended period, but failed to make arrangements to cover
his professional obligations, nunc pro tunc relief was not appropriate. See,
e.g., Freeman v. Bonner, 761 A.2d 1193, 1196 (Pa. Super. 2000); In re
Interest of C.K., 535 A.2d 634, 639 (Pa. Super. 1987). The Law Firm
attempts to distinguish these cases by noting that they involved the illnesses
of family members of counsel, and not the disability of counsel themselves.
We find this distinction unavailing. While there may be some weight to
the argument that an unexpected incapacitation of counsel himself is more
conducive to a finding of non-negligent circumstances, the Law Firm has not
argued that counsel’s hip surgery was an emergency surgery. Indeed, the
Law Firm does not challenge the trial court’s observation that the Law Firm
-3-
J-A06004-17
did not claim that counsel’s surgery was unforeseen. As a result, we cannot
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the Law
Firm nunc pro tunc relief.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/31/2017
-4-