Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-2354SPRINGFIELD CONTRACTORS, fNC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTfFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. TRINDLE STATlON, LLC, : DEFENDANT : 12-2354 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTI�F'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE HESS, P..�. AND,MASLAND, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ��� day of April, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial .ludgment on the Pleadings, the responses �iled thereto, and after oral argument, tf�e Plain#iff s Motion for the Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. Defendant is granted lea�e to amend their filing to adjust the amount in controversy not inconsistent with #he attached opinion within twenty (20) days of this order. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. ' l..C. Heim, Esquire For Pla�ntiff Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire For Defendant SPRINGFIELD CONTRACTORS, INC., : IN THE C�URT �F COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF ; CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANiA V. : TR�NDLE STATI�N, LLC, : DEFENDANT ; 12-2354 CNIL TERM lN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTIQN FQR PARTtAL JIJDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE HESS P.J. AND MASLAND J. OPINION AND ORDER OF CQURT Masland, J., A�ril 22, 20'14:-- Before this Court is a motion by Plaintiff Springfield Contractors, Inc. for partial judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed a mechanic's lien claim against Defendant Trindle Station, LLC to which Defendant repl�ed, inter alia, with a oountercfaim. Defendant's counterclaim is the subject of this motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, which we will grant with leave for the Defendanf to amend. In considering a motion for judgment or� the pleadings under Pa.R.C.P. 1034(a), "[a] motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted where, on the facts a�erred, the law says with certair�iy that no reco�ery is possible." Metcalf v. Pesock, 885 A.2d 539, 540 (Pa. Super. 20�5). Specifically addressing the Defendant's arguments opposing fhe motion, the Plaintiff has not wai�ed the right to file a motion for partiai judgment on the pleadings wMere the defense asserted is one supplied by statute. Romaine v. W.C.A.B. (Bryn Mawr Chateau Nursing Homej, 9Q1 A.2d 477, 485 (Pa. 2006) (holding "a nonwaivable defense is one in which the specific language of the statute operates #o bar or destroy 12-2354 CIVIL TERM the claimant's right to bring an action as opposed to barring reco�ery, i.e. one tha# bars the right rather than merely the remedy."). Despite ha�ing by�assed the usual step of preliminary objections and instead providing an answer to the counterclaim, this mofion for partiai judgment on the pleadings is a nonwai�able defense pro�ided by statute because 49 Pa.C.S. § 1701(e) expl�citly forbids the filir�g of a counte�-claim ir� response to a mechanic's lien. Therefore the motion is proper and not barred by any prior wai�er. Moving to Defen�ant's argument that this Court should 19berally construe the R�ales of Ci�il Procedure to permit the counterclaim as merely a set-off in order to preserve Defenda�t's substantive rights, we are only partly persuaded. In instances where a counterclaim has been interpreted as set-off, the amot�nt claimed in the set-off was less than that of t�e mechanic's lien. Maitemas v. Stehman, 642 A.2d 1120, 1121 (Pa. Super. 1994). Se#-offs are limited to the amount of the lien itself. !d. In tl�e instant case, Defendant's total counterclaims request more fihan the amounf claimed in the mechanic's lien. That does not mean howe�er that some of Defendant's counterclaims, if �iewed as a claim for a set-off, are not meritorious. �ur courts t�a�e held "if there is [a] defect in pleading which could be cured by amendment, judgment should not be entered without affording opportunity to amend." Lehner v. Mantgomery, 119 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. �956}. See also Jefferies v. Hoffman, 2D7 A.2d 774, 775 (Pa. 1965} (holding a party's filing of new matter which achieved the same effect as a motion fo strike €or impertinence warranted ame�dment, not a motion for judgment on the plead ings). Here, the Defendant has filed a counterclaim �hat has the o�erall effect of a claim for a s�t-off. That Defendant requested a larger sum in the counterclaim than the _2_ 12-2354 CIVIL TERM amount requested in Plaintiff s mechanic's lien is a curable error. Therefore, Defendants are instructed #o amend their pleadings to lower the set-off amount to be in compliance with t�e abo�e cases and strike any ciaims not arising as a set-off. ORDER OF COURT h� AND N�W, this � day of April, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motian for Partial Judgment on fhe Pleadings, the responses filed thereto, and after oral argument, the Plaintiff's Motion for the Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. Defer�dan� is granted lea�e io amend their filing to adjust the amount in contro�ersy not inconsistenf with the attached opinion within twenty (24) days of �his order. L.C. Heim, Esquire For Plaintiff Paige Macdona[d-Matthes, Esquire For Defendant -3- By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J.