HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-00129
WILLIAM ENGARD,
Plaintiff
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
M.H., N.L., ASHELY HERSHEY, and OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
IRENE RISSER,
Defendants2021-00129 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Placey, C.P.J. 1 April 2021
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff recorded a judgment from a magisterial district judge entered against
Defendant Risser (Defendant) and her minor child (N.L.)
Plaintiff then filed a praecipe for writ of execution against both Defendant and minor
child. Thereafter, the court was notified by the Sheriff of a claim for exemption being
submitted and an expedited hearing was set. At that hearing Defendant claimed a
parental liability limits exemption and both sides indicated a desire to speak with and or
retain counsel prior to proceeding on the merits of the exemption. A hearing on the
merits was held on 1 March 2021 at which both parties appeared self-represented.
FACTS
The docket reflects that Magisterial District Judge Elizabeth Beckley entered a
judgement in favor of Plaintiff for $11,338.89 jointly and severally against six named
defendants on 27 November 2019. Plaintiff had his civil award certified by Judge
Beckley on 3 March 2020. Plaintiff recorded that certified judgment with Cumberland
County on 11 January 2021 and the next day filed a praecipe for writ of
execution against both Defendant and her minor child.
At the exemption hearing Plaintiff described that the judgment arose out a
damages caused to his personal property by several minor children with Plaintiff being
sole claimant for the injuries caused by the intentional acts. Plaintiff indicated his
request to obtain a payment plan from the Magisterial District Court from all defendants,
which is not of record, and subsequently only sought individual judgments, which is
reflected in the praecipe as $3779.63. The court noted its general familiarity with the
facts due to presiding over the juvenile delinquency matters.
Defendant reiterated her written claim for exemption based on monetary limits of
liability found in 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5505. Further, it was reported that an exemption
claim on behalf of her minor child was also submitted that alleged the same exemption.
was confirmed by the Sheriff.
A review of the juvenile docket shows that written allegations were received on 6
September 2019, a finding of fact hearing set for 30 January 2020 at which a counseled
admission was made, and the juvenile adjudicated delinquent on 2 March 2020. The
adjudication included restitution that has now been paid in full; however, it did not
. Plaintiff had already obtained his civil judgment against
Defendant and minor child prior to the delinquency adjudication of minor child and a
duplicate claim for juvenile restitution was not presented to the juvenile court nor any
finding made as to the validity of such a claim.
2
-counseled prosecution of this civil case is an attempt to get his
on his own terms and conditions. Magisterial District Courts are not
courts of record so the basis for the award of joint and several liability is unknown. The
do not
defend the action or be compelled to testify in civil defense while criminal charges were
pending. It is unknown if anyone notified Judge Beckley of the pending charges or
raised a civil liability limitation, let alone what substantive evidence was presented at the
civil trial; however, at least one civil defendant chose to not defend as is reflected in the
default judgment entered by Judge Beckley.
Sua sponte the court entered an order amending the caption to redact the now
known minor parties full names as originally
1
appointed counsel to represent the minor child of Defendant.
DISCUSSION
Statement of Law The parties chose not to avail themselves of legal counsel,
which means that the matter was left to the court to decide upon constrained facts and
then apply the law to the facts based only a dearth of presented legal citation and
argument supplied by the parties.
The claims for exemption from civil execution are statutory and provide for a
general monetary exemption, as well as for specific items of particularly identified
2
property.
1
The caption of all legal papers filed in a civil action by and against a minor must designate the minor by
the initials of his or her first and last name. Pa.R.C.P. No. 2028.
2
42 Pa.C.S. §§8123 and 8124.
3
The monetary limits of parental liability generally provides that r this
chapter shall be limited to $1,000 for injuries suffered by any one person as a
result of one tortious act or continuous series of tortious acts $2,500
regardless of the number of persons who suffer injury as a result of one tortious act or
3
continuous series of tortious acts. the event that
actual loss as ascertained by the court or the judgment against the child exceeds
$2,500, the parents shall be discharged from further liability by the payment of $2,500
4
into court. In order to establish liability in civil proceedings against a parent either a
rendered against the child in a civil action for injury because of the
tortious act of the child and the judgment has not been satisfied within a period of 30
days, the injured person may petition the court for a rule to show cause why judgment
should not be entered against the parent a victim of a willful, tortious act of a
child may initiate a civil action directly against the parent or parents of the child
who committed the tortious act for the purpose of receiving compensation for the
5
injuries suffered, not to exceed the limitations set forth in section 5505.
In no case is an injured party entitled to a double recovery for an injury. Any
judgment against a child resulting from a tortious act for which a parent makes payment
is reduced by the amount paid by the parent, who does not have a right of indemnity or
6
contribution against the child.
3
23 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (emphasis added).
4
Id.
5
23 Pa.C.S. § 5504 (emphasis added).
6
23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5506 and 5507.
4
A court of common pleas is required to appoint counsel for a minor child in civil
matters on multiple junctures, to include:
If, after the conclusion of the trial, or after the entry of a finding, verdict or
judgment against a minor, application is made for the appointment of a guardian
for a minor party against whom any relief is sought, the court shall, in either case,
forthwith appoint a guardian for such minor, and may vacate the finding, verdict
7
or judgment and may enter an order in the nature of a procedendo.
Otherwise, where no guardian ad litem has been appointed for a minor defendant, a
8
verdict, judgment, or decree will be set aside and a new trial granted. It must be noted
that a minor is not required to be represented by a guardian in an action before a
9
magisterial district judge.
Application of facts to law The issue of the claim against the minor child, N.L.,
is readily addressed in the short term, a guardian ad litem has been appointed and we
will stay any execution until further order of court where the minor is represented as
required by law.
It is clear that the injuries suffered by this one person are the result of the tortious
act or acts of N.L. and is limited to the $1000 under the statutory parental limitations of
liability. The statute does not provide for any time requirement for raising the limitation,
so it can be raised before, during, or as in this case, after trial. This liability limitation is
exemption cannot be found otherwise in the law. The exemption claim may not comply
with a strict reading of the statute to afford exemptive relief but a plain understanding of
7
Pa.R.C.P. No. 2034(d)
8
Hamilton v. Moore, 6 A.2d 787 (Pa. 1939)
9
Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. No. 802
5
the pro se request can be found to invoke the limitation of legal responsibility such that
once the parent has paid the liability limit of $1000 into court Defendant shall be
discharged from further obligation.This represents compliance with the parental liability
limitation for this one victim without review of the facts presented on the claim decided
by Judge Beckley.
ORDER OF COURT
st
AND NOW, this 1 day of April 2021, upon consideration of the claims for
exemption and following a hearing on both claims the following relief is ORDERED:
1. A STAY from execution is ordered as to the judgment against the minor N.L.
until further order of court;
2. Defe
3. Upon payment of $1000 into the court Defendant Risser is DISCHARGED
from further liability at this docket.
No further relief is granted at this time.
By the Court,
________________________
Thomas A. Placey C.P.J.
Distribution:
Willian Engard
Irene Risser
Katie Maxwell, Esq.
Cumberland County Sheriffs Office
6