Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-3119 Civil MARTIN WALSH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : : WILLIE WILLIAMS, : Defendant : : : V.: No. 06-3119 CIVIL : : JEFFREY BEARD, SECRETARY : PA DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, : Respondent : IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Ebert, J., May 16, 2008 — Respondent Jeffrey A. Beard has filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania following an Order entered February 25, 2008, requiring Respondent to begin attaching wages of Defendant Willie Williams and awarding attorney’s fees to Plaintiff Walsh against the 1 Respondent in the amount of $500.00. Respondent contends that the Order entered by this Court is unenforceable against him because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the 2 Respondent. This opinion is written pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a). STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The case before this Court finds its origins in a landlord-tenant dispute between Plaintiff Martin Walsh and Defendant Willie Williams. A judgment was entered against Defendant for 1 See Order of Court, Feb. 25, 2008. 2 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Apr. 16, 2008. 3 nonpayment of rent for, or damage to, residential property rented from Plaintiff. Defendant was served by Deputy Sheriff Gerald N. Worthington of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with the Notice of Intent to Attach Wages on December 5, 2006, at the State Correctional 4 Institution in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, where Defendant is employed. Pursuant to the judgment against the Defendant, Defendant’s employer, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, was notified, via a Cumberland County Prothonotary-issued Writ of Attachment, to garnish Defendant’s wages to fulfill the $2,075.29 judgment (plus costs). This notification was sent May 5 25, 2007. On July 29, 2007, Counsel for Plaintiff, David Lanza, sent a letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections requesting that the Department complete the attachment paperwork which had been forwarded by the Cumberland County Prothonotary many weeks prior. The letter was addressed to Respondent, Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of 6 Corrections, and sent to the State Correctional Institute’s address in Camp Hill. Since the letter was sent on July 29, 2007, no wages have been forwarded to the Prothonotary as required under 7 the Writ of Attachment. Furthermore, Attorney Lanza never received any reply regarding his request. On January 28, 2008, Plaintiff requested that this Court enter an order under which Respondent would be required to immediately begin attaching Defendant’s wages. Plaintiff also requested that the Court find Respondent in contempt of the Court’s Writ of Attachment and 3 Notice of Filing Judgment, Nov. 15, 2005; See also Notice of Intent to Attach Wages, Salary or Commissions, filed Nov. 27, 2006. 4 Sheriff’s Return – Regular, filed Dec. 6, 2006. 5 Praecipe for Writ of Attachment and Writ of Attachment issued, May 25, 2007, by David J. Lanza for Plaintiff. 6 See Ex. B attached to Plaintiff’s Petition to Enforce Writ against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed Jan. 28, 2008. 7 Writ of Attachment issued May 25, 2007. 2 8 award attorney’s fees to Plaintiff. On January 28, 2008, this Court issued a Rule upon Respondent to show cause as to why the Plaintiff’s request for relief should not be granted and 9 making the Rule returnable within 20 days from service upon Respondent by mail. Plaintiff 10 served this Order of Court upon Respondent via regular post on January 30, 2008. Respondent did not respond to either the Petition or the Order. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Petition or to this Court’s Order, on February 25, 2008, this Court entered an Order making the Rule absolute. The Order further required Respondent to immediately begin attaching Defendant’s wages in accordance with the Writ of Attachment. Attorney’s fees were awarded to Plaintiff, Martin Walsh, and against 11 Respondent in the amount of $500.00. Finally, Respondent did file a response to Plaintiff’s 12 Petition to Enforce the Writ against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections on the same date 13 as the Court’s Order making the Rule absolute. Respondent now appeals the February 25, 2008 Order. The appeal is based upon the claim that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over 14 the Respondent. The Writ of Attachment in this matter named the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at Camp Hill and was apparently forwarded to the administrative office of the Department of Corrections at 2500 Lisburn Road, Camp Hill. Respondent asserts, however, that such Writs are ordinarily forwarded and/or served upon the Bureau of Commonwealth Payroll Operations. He further contends that neither the State Correctional Institution nor the Department of Corrections has the authority to withhold funds from an employee’s pay and thus 8 See Plaintiff’s Petition to Enforce Writ against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed Jan. 28, 2008. 9 See Order of Court, filed Jan. 29, 2008. 10 See Ex. B attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Make Rule Absolute, filed Feb. 19, 2008. 11 See Order entered Feb. 25, 2008. 12 See Plaintiff’s Petition to Enforce Writ against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed Jan. 28, 2008. 13 See Respondent’s Response to Petition to Enforce Writ Against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed Feb. 25, 2008. 14 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Apr. 17, 2008. 3 15 could not legally attach the wages of the Defendant as required under the Writ of Attachment. Respondent claims that his office is not located at the Administrative office, and that he has 16 never been served or notified of the underlying Writ of Attachment. Respondent additionally asserts that Plaintiff unilaterally modified the case caption to contain Respondent’s name: changing the Respondent from SCI-Camp Hill to Respondent. Respondent complains that Plaintiff had no authority to unilaterally change a party to the action 17 by modifying the caption. Respondent contends that Plaintiff’s act of unilateral modification 18 does not vest this Court with personal jurisdiction over the Respondent. Respondent claims that since Plaintiff failed to take the necessary amendment actions to vest jurisdiction over his 19 person, he has no obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion or the Rule. DISCUSSION This Court will not enter into a needless dispute regarding jurisdiction. We admit that the law favors Respondent’s argument that jurisdiction has not been properly obtained. That said, we cannot support Respondent’s behavior. Notification of the garnishment was sent to Defendant’s employer via a Writ of Attachment. Importantly, it should be noted that Respondent admits that the Writ was issued by 20 the Cumberland County Prothonotary. Respondent contends, however, that neither the Administrative Offices of the Department of Corrections nor the State Correctional Institution at 21 Camp Hill received the Writ, or at least have no record of such receipt. Undoubtedly, the letter, which was clearly and accurately addressed to the State Correctional Institution, was 15 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Apr. 17, 2008 at ¶ A. 16 Id. at ¶ C. 17 Id. 18 Id. at ¶ D. 19 Id. at ¶ E. 20 See Response to Petition to Enforce Writ Against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed Feb. 25, 2008 at ¶ 1. 21 Id. 4 received. What happened to the Writ of Attachment following receipt can only be left to speculation. Approximately two months later, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant’s employer requesting compliance with the Writ of Attachment. The letter, which Respondent claims was also sent to the wrong location, was however sent to the most logical location: the place of employment – the Department of Corrections. Plaintiff’s counsel addressed the letter to the overseer of the Department of Corrections: Jeffrey Beard, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections. In short, there was nothing improper about Plaintiff’s counsel’s actions in attempting to contact the most authoritative figure at Defendant’s place of employment in order to gain compliance with the Writ of Attachment. What was improper, however, was the Department of Correction’s response to Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for compliance with the Writ. Instead of directing Plaintiff’s attorney toward the proper department, the Department of Corrections, which is governed by the Respondent, simply did not reply at all to either the Writ of Attachment or to the letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel. To add insult to injury, Respondent refused even to provide this Court with a timely response. On January 28, 2008, this Court issued a Rule upon Respondent to show cause as to why relief should not be granted. The Rule allotted Respondent 20 days from receipt by regular mail to make this response and yet no timely response was filed. Respondent was undoubtedly made aware of its responsibility to respond to the Rule, as a response was filed on the same date that the Rule was made absolute. Again, we do not deny our likely lack of jurisdiction over the Respondent Jeffrey Beard. However, Respondent had ample time and notice to raise this issue and yet chose to remain 5 silent. Respondent chose to ignore the Writ of Attachment, Plaintiff’s logical actions and this Court’s Rule to show cause. Such behavior is deplorable and clearly does not comport with the courteous expectations of professionals. Moreover, this entire problem could have easily been avoided if someone under Respondent’s authority had been courteous enough to simply point Plaintiff’s counsel in the right direction. Respondent and his department have wasted Attorney Lanza’s time as well as the State’s resources and taxpayer monies with such unacceptable behavior. They continue to waste such funds with this appeal, which would never have occurred if reasonable diligence, or even common courtesy, had been exercised. CONCLUSION In summation, this Court does not deny its lack of jurisdiction over the Respondent but adamantly condemns Respondent’s behavior toward both Plaintiff’s counsel and this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that attorney’s fees should be awarded to Plaintiff against the Respondent in the amount of $500.00. BY THE COURT, __________________________ M.L. Ebert, Jr., J. David J. Lanza, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff William E. Fairall, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Respondent 6