Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-3933 CivilCUMBERLAND COUNTY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NURSING HOME, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : HOWARD H. WAGENHEIM, : Defendant : NO. 95-3933 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE SHEELY, P.J. and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of December, 1995, upon careful consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections, as well as the briefs and oral arguments presented on the matter, the preliminary objections are DENIED. BY THE COURT, David W. DeLuce, Esq. Joseph L. Hitchings, Esq. 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey N. Yoffe, Esq. 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant :re CUMBERLAND COUNTY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NURSING HOME, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : : v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : HOWARD H. WAGENHEIM, : Defendant : NO. 95-3933 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE SHEELY, P.J., and OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J. .This is a case in which Howard H. Wagenheim, the Defendant, signed a Cumberland County Nursing Home admission agreement as attorney-in-fact and as "responsible party" for his father, Sidney A. Wagenheim. Under the agreement, Defendant promised to assure that his father's bill would be paid from his father's assets and/or funds. Plaintiff has filed the instant action for breach of contract and conversion, seeking to recover unpaid charges for Sidney A. Wagenheim's care at the nursing facility. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff's complaint makes the following averments of fact: Plaintiff is the Cumberland County Nursing Home, a nursing facility located at 375 Claremont Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The Defendant is Howard H. Wagenheim, an adult individual residing at 5254 Strothmore Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant is the son of Sidney A. Wagenheim, who was a resident of the Cumberland County Nursing Home from December 1993 through July 1994. In the course of Sidney A. Wagenheim's admission to the NO.' 95-3933 CIVIL TERM Cumberland County Nursing Home, an admission agreement dated December 2, 1993, was executed by the Defendant on behalf of his father as attorney-in-fact and as "responsible party" in connection with his father's care, assuring that his father's bill at the Nursing Home would be paid from his father's assets and/or funds. More specifically, the agreement stated that "[t]he Responsible Party (Guarantor) assures that the Resident's bill will be paid from, the Resident's assets/funds. If the Resident does not have personal funds or when personal funds are exhausted, the Responsible Party will make application to Medical Assistance on behalf of the Resident. If the Resident does not qualify for Medical Assistance funding, the Responsible Party will arrange discharge for the Resident if the bill is not paid in a timely manner." Defendant served as attorney-in-fact for Sidney A. Wagenheim pursuant to a power of attorney executed in January of 1992. By notice dated January 20, 1994, the Defendant was informed that Sidney A. Wagenheim's level of care was being changed from skilled care to intermediate care effective January 21, 1994. Pursuant to the admission agreement, Plaintiff alleges, Defendant as the responsible party was obligated to pay over to Cumberland County Nursing Home all income Sidney A. Wagenheim received during his admission in order to offset the costs not covered by medical assistance. The Defendant was given the opportunity to appeal the 2 NO.' 95-3933 CIVIL TERM determination of the level of care necessary for Sidney A. Wagenheim; however, no such appeal was filed. During the period of Sidney A. Wagenheim's residence at the Cumberland County Nursing Home, the Defendant was receiving Sidney A. Wagenheim's monthly social security payments, Veteran's Administration benefits and pension checks, totalling more than $1,600.00 per month. Notwithstanding the terms of the admission agreement, Defendant failed to apply the income received to Plaintiff's charges for the months of January through June of 1994. Despite repeated written demands, Defendant has refused to pay the total amount of $9,409.06 owing to the Plaintiff, or any portion thereof. On August 30, 1995, Defendant filed the following preliminary objections: (1) a demurrer based upon nonliability of an agent acting on behalf of a disclosed principal; (2) a demurrer based upon the legal non-assignability of Sidney A. Wagenheim's income; and (3) a motion for a more specific complaint, requesting that Plaintiff be directed to plead the type of plan from which Sidney A. Wagenheim received his pension check and to state more specifically whether the plan was part of the Pennsylvania State Retirement System or was some other plan qualifying under ERISA. Defendant's preliminary objections are currently before this court for disposition. NO.° 95-3933 CIVIL TERM STATEMENT OF LAW Demurrer. "In order to sustain a demurrer, it is essential that an opponent's pleading indicate on its face that his claim ... cannot be sustained. The question to be decided is ... whether, upon the facts averred, it shows with certainty that the law will not uphold the pleading." 2 Goodrich Amram 2d §1017(b):27, at 271 (1991). "Since sustaining a demurrer results in a denial of a pleader's claim ... a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only in cases that clearly and without a doubt fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted. If the facts as pleaded state a claim for which relief may be granted ... ~under any theory of law, then there is sufficient doubt to require that a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer be rejected." Id. at 271-72. Motion for a more specific pleading. "The question to be decided when a preliminary objection in the form of a motion for a more specific pleading is interposed ... is whether a pleading is sufficiently clear to enable an opposing party to prepare a response .... " 2 Goodrich Amram §1017(b):21, at 265 (1991). "A preliminary objection in the form of a motion for a more specific pleading may not be used to secure details of which the objecting party has as much knowledge as his or her opponent or 4 NO.' 95-3933 CIVIL TERM more." Id., at §1017(b):22 at 266-67. "The existence in Pennsylvania of extensive and liberal rules of discovery limits the scope of the motion for a more specific pleading. In general, when a party states a case in a manner that fully advises an opponent of the nature of the case and of the matters with which the opponent wili be confronted at trial, there is no need for a motion for a more specific pleading; the opponent should seek discovery if he or she'needs more information to prepare a response." Id., §1017(b):24, at 268. Principles of contract interpretation. The primary objective of contract interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the parties as it is reasonably manifested by the language of their written contract. Toomb NJ Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 404 Pa. Super. 471, 476-77, 591 A.2d 304, 307 (1991). The words of a contract which are unambiguous should be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Harford Mutual Ins. Co. v. Moorehead, 396 Pa. Super. 234, 240, 578 A.2d 492, 495 (1990). The court must assess the writing as a whole, and not in discrete units, when determining whether a writing is ambiguously drafted. Ready Food Prod., Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 417 Pa. Super. 643, 646, 612 A.2d 1385, 1387 (1992). In construing a contract, a court should adopt the interpretation that is the most reasonable and probable, bearing in mind the objectives which the parties intended to accomplish 5 NO.'95-3933 CIVIL TERM through the agreement. Urenfield Homeowners Ass'n. v. DeYoung, 419 Pa. Super. 621, 627, 600 A.2d 960, 963 (1991). APPLICATION 'OF LAW TO FACTS With respect to Defendant's preliminary objections in the form of a~demurrer the court believes that the facts which Plaintiff has alleged in its complaint are sufficient to state claims upon which relief can be granted.~ An arguable interpretation of the language of the written admission agreement is that the Defendant promised to pay for the care that his father was receiving at the nursing home through utilization of his father's assets and/or other funds. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to do so for the ~ The court is unable to agree with Defendant's characterization of the admission agreement as a prohibited "assignment" of Sidney A. Wagenheim's social security, Veterans' Administration and pension benefits. An assignment has been defined as "[a] transfer or making over to another of the whole of any property, real or personal, in possession or in action, or of any estate or right therein." In re Lease-A-Fleet, 141 B.R. 853, 862 (E.D. Pa. 1992), quoting Black's Law Dictionary 109 (5th ed. 1979). When an assignment is made the property rights become vested in the assignee so that the assignor no longer has any interest in the account. Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers Finance Co., 264 U.S. 182, 44 S. Ct. 266, 68 L. Ed. 628 (1924). Furthermore, "[a] promise to pay a debt out of a particular fund does not constitute an assignment of the fund." In re Lease-A-Fleet, 141 B.R. 853, 862 (E.D. Pa. 1992). In this case, control over Sidney A. Wagenheim's income was not relinquished to Cumberland County Nursing Home; rather, the Defendant was to receive the funds, and then subsequently disburse the funds to Cumberland County Nursing Home to offset any costs not covered by medical assistance. Under these circumstances, the admission agreement cannot be said to constitute an assignment as opposed to a mere contract for the payment of money. 6 NO. 95-3933 CIVIL TERM months of January through June of 1994, and that the Defendant received and retained the monthly income of his father for those months. The court believes that these allegations, along with the language of the contract, are sufficient to state claims for breach of contract and for conversion. For these reasons the court believes that Defendant's preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer must be denied. 'With regard to Defendant's contention that Plaintiff's complaint lacks sufficient specificity concerning the type of plan from which Sidney A. Wagenheim received his pension check, it appears that the allegations which remain are sufficiently clear to enable the Defendant to prepare a defense. The Defendant has, or should have, as much knowledge as, or better knowledge than, Plaintiff has with regard to the type of pension plan involved. If Defendant is in need of more information, discovery is an available resource. For these reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this Jg~ day of December, 1995, upon careful consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections, as well as the briefs and oral arguments presented on the matter, the preliminary objections are DENIED. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Ole~ Jr., J. ? J /k~ NO.'95-3933 CIVIL TERM David W. DeLuce, Esq. Joseph L. Hitchings, Esq. 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey N. Yoffe, Esq. 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant :re 8