The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-980 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF INSURANCE COMPANY, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : 02-980 CIVIL V. : : PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY and TODD PERRY, : Defendants : : CIVIL ACTION – LAW V. : : FULTON BANK, : Additional Defendant : IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Ebert, J., October 25, 2010 – On August 2, 2010, after a Non-Jury Trial in the above-captioned matter, this Court found in favor of Additional Defendant Fulton Bank and against Defendant Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company (hereinafter Penn Mutual). Accordingly, final judgment was entered for Fulton Bank. Penn Mutual filed this appeal. DISCUSSION This Court previously filed a thirteen-page opinion on August 2, 2010, which deals with the factual and legal issues presented in the case at length. This opinion is filed pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925 (a) to supplement the prior opinion and more specifically address those issues raised in Penn Mutual’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. Each matter complained of on appeal by Penn Mutual is addressed in turn: 1. Nothing in Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 precludes this Court from entering final judgment for a party following a non-jury trial. The rule articulates to the parties of a suit the requirement for the timely submission of a post-trial motion. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 227.1 (c)(2), “[p]ost-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after … the filing of the decision in the case of a trial without jury.” This Court’s decision, which included the verdict and final judgment, was entered on August 2, 2010. On August 12, 2010, within the requisite ten days stipulated by the above stated rule, Penn Mutual filed a motion for post trial relief. This Court considered that motion and Fulton Bank’s response thereto and denied the motion. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that “Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1 requires parties to file post-trial motions in order to preserve issues for appeal.” Lenhart v. Cigna Co., 824 A.2d 1193, 1197 (Pa. Super. 2003)(citing Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54, 54 (1998). By filing a timely motion for post trial relief, Penn Mutual has thereby preserved those issues it raised for appeal. Accordingly, no error of law has been committed by this Court. One cannot lose sight of the fact that this Court has been dealing with this case since February 2002. The matter has been rife with motions, withdrawals of counsel, numerous discovery issues, and motions for summary judgment. Frankly, at the end of the Non-Jury Trial, the positions of the remaining two parties were crystal clear to this Court. This Court did issue its verdict and enter final judgment at the same time. The purpose of this action was to expedite closure of this case and provide the parties with some finality. In any regard, this action by the Court has in no way prejudiced Penn Mutual. 2. Addressed in the August 2, 2010, In Re: Non-Jury Trial, Opinion and Order. 3. Addressed in the August 2, 2010, In Re: Non-Jury Trial, Opinion and Order. 4. Addressed in the August 2, 2010, In Re: Non-Jury Trial, Opinion and Order. 2 5. Addressed in the August 2, 2010, In Re: Non-Jury Trial, Opinion and Order. 6. Addressed in the August 2, 2010, In Re: Non-Jury Trial, Opinion and Order. 7. Addressed in the August 2, 2010, In Re: Non-Jury Trial, Opinion and Order. 8. This Court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company (hereinafter Great-West) in the amount of th $270,173.95 rather than $194,525.61. On March 29, 1988, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania entered into an annuity contract with Penn Mutual, pursuant to which Penn Mutual would make twenty-six annual payments to Perry of $270,173.95 each, less any 1th applicable taxes required to be withheld. On May 20, 1999, Perry entered into a “Lottery Prize Assignment Agreement” with Statewide Funding LLC (hereinafter Statewide) under which Perry was to receive a single lump-sum payment of $2,410,000.00 from Statewide and in return Perry would assign to Statewide his right to 2 receive the then fourteen remaining annuity payments from Penn Mutual. In 2000, following multiple assignments, Great-West became the party entitled to the annual 3th payment from the annuity contract. On January 20, 2001, instead of transferring the 4 annual payment of $270,173.95 to Great-West pursuant to a court order, Penn Mutual mistakenly transferred the annual payment of $194,525.34 to Perry’s account at Fulton 1 Penn Mutual’s Ex. 1, p. 4; Complaint, Ex. A, Great-West v. Penn Mutual, Feb 27, 2002, (No. 02-980); Notes of Testimony, Mar. 29, 2010, p. 5 (hereinafter N.T. Day 1 at __). 2 Fulton Bank’s Ex. 8; Complaint, Ex. B, Great-West v. Penn Mutual, Feb. 27, 2002, (No. 02- 980). 3 N.T. Day 2 at 197-98. 4 Fulton Bank’s Ex. 8: Order Approving Voluntary Assignment of Lottery Winnings, Oct. 21, 1999, ordering (“AND NOW, this 21 day of Oct, 1999, it is hereby ordered that: (1) … (2) Statewide Funding, LLC, or its assigns, shall be paid certain lottery prize payments to which TODD A. PERRY is entitle; namely the (14) annual lottery prize payments, less applicable tax withholding, due to TODD A. PERRY on or about January 20, 2000 and on each succeeding th January 20 through and including January 20, 2013 each in the gross amount of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR DOLLARS ($270,164.00), said payments to be made to: STATEWIDE FUNDING, LLC …”). 3 5 Bank. Penn Mutual also mistakenly withheld Perry’s applicable taxes on the $194,525.34, equivalent to the remainder of the $270,173.95, instead of crediting that 6 amount to Great-West. Accordingly, this Court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Great-West in the amount of $270,173.95. If the federal tax withheld by Penn Mutual and credited to the account of Todd Perry has subsequently been credited to the account of Great-West, as directed by the letter January 20th, 2000 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and then that amount should be credited to Penn Mutual and acknowledged by Penn Mutual, 7 deducted from the $270,173.95 judgment. In short, the issue raised here by Penn Mutual is one of accounting. Given the torturous trail of the payments of these lottery winnings since 1988, it is hard to definitively say whether the required taxes were paid. Great- West was entitled to the entire sum of $270,173.95 from which the required taxes were to be deducted. Obviously if the taxes had been paid, it may be appropriate for a credit to be given to Penn Mutual. However, in balance, this Court has awarded interest on the outstanding judgment from January 21, 2001. 9. Addressed in the September 5, 2007, In Re: Motion for Summary Judgment Before Oler, J., Guido, J., and Ebert, J., Opinion and Order. 5 Fulton Bank’s Ex. 4, 8, 9; N.T. Day 1 at 70. 6 Fulton Bank’s Ex. 1: Letter from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and Acknowledged by Penn Mutual, Jan. 20, 2000, stating (“[T]he Order directs that Todd Perry’s Lottery winning payments, due annually on or about January 20, 2001, through and including January 20, 2003 (sic) less the required federal withholding, be made to the assignee: Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company … The federal withholding is to be credited to the assignee Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company …”); Great-West’s Complaint, Feb. 27, 2002, claims (“17. However, on or about January 20, 2001, Defendant Penn Mutual disregarded the Order and violated the terms of its undertaking by transferring the net amount of the January 20, 2001 Annual Payment of $194,525.34 to Fulton Bank rather than to Plaintiff Great-West and transferring $75,648.74 to the United States Treasury to the account of Defendant Perry rather to the account of Great-West.”); Fulton Bank’s Ex. 4, 8, 9. Fulton Bank’s Ex. 1. 7 4 CONCLUSION For the reasons addressed in both the prior opinion and this supplemental opinion filed pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925 (a), this Court did not err in finding in favor of Fulton Bank and against Penn Mutual on all claims. By the Court, __________________________ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Girard E. Rickards, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Penn Mutual George C. Werner, Esq. Attorney for Additional Defendant Fulton Bank 5