Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2734 Civil AUDREY J. MCPHERSON, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOWARD A. SKINNER AND DEBRA K. SKINNER, DEFENDANTS 06-2734 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PERSONAL JURISDICTION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., November 30,2006:-- Plaintiff, Audrey J. McPherson, of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint against Howard Skinner and Debra Skinner, of Clermont, Florida. Debra K. Skinner is the niece of Audrey J. McPherson. Plaintiff avers that she made three loans to defendants. Two were by forwarding checks drawn on her Pennsylvania account to defendants in Florida -- $10,000 on August 26, 2004, and $2,000 on November 8,2004. The third was on January 8,2005, when she made a $1,500 wire transfer to defendants in Florida. Plaintiff claims a total due and unpaid of $13,500 with interest. Defendants filed a preliminary objection to the complaint challenging jurisdiction over their persons. Depositions were taken, and the objection is ready for disposition. The parties do not dispute that there were three telephone conversations between them during which defendants secured the three loans from plaintiff, each occurring when defendants were in Florida and plaintiff was in 06-2734 CIVIL TERM Pennsylvania. The $1,500 loan was for defendants to purchase a wheelchair. The $10,000 loan was for a payment on defendants' home. The $2,000 loan was for the payment of taxes owed by defendants. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution permits a state to exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are such that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being called to defend in the forum state. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Keller, 737 A.2d 279 (Pa. Super. 1999). In Skinner v. Flymo, Inc., 351 Pa. Super. 234 (1986), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated: Random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts between a defendant and the forum state will not support an exercise of jurisdiction. [Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. _],105 S.Ct. at 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d at 542; Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra, 465 U.S. at 774,104 S.Ct. at 1478,79 L.Ed.2d at 797; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, 444 U.S. at 299,100 S.Ct. at 568, 62 L. Ed.2d at 502. Jurisdiction is only proper "where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himselfwhich create a 'substantial connection' with the forum State." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at ----, 105 S.Ct. at 2184,85 L.Ed.2d at 542 (emphasis in original). See: McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199,201,2 L.Ed.2d 223,226 (1957). Unilateral activity in the forum state by others having a relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement that a defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at ----,105 S.Ct. at 2183,85 L.Ed.2d at 542; Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, supra, 466 U.S. at 416-17,104 S.Ct. at 1873,80 L.Ed.2d at 412; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, 444 U.S. at 298,100 S.Ct. at 567,62 L.Ed.2d at 502; Slota v. Moorings, Ltd., supra, 343 U.S. -2- 06-2734 CIVIL TERM at 102-03, 494 A.2d at 4. "Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with 'fair play and substantial justice.'" Id. at ----, 105 S. Ct. at 2184, 85 L. Ed.2d at 543. Factors to be considered include" 'the burden on the defendant,' 'the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute,' 'the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief,' 'the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,' and the 'shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.'" Id. at ----,105 S.Ct. at 2184,85 L.Ed.2d at 543, quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, 444 U.S. at 292, 100 S. Ct. at 564, 62 L. Ed.2d at 498. On the other hand, where a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable. . . Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, 471 U.S. at ----,105 S.Ct. at 2184-2185,85 L.Ed.2d at 543-544 (citations omitted). (Emphasis added.) A Pennsylvania Long-arm Statute at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5322, et seq. permits a Pennsylvania court to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the fullest extent allowed under the constitution of the United States and jurisdiction may be based on the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under the constitution of the United States. C.J. Betters v. Mid South Aviation, 407 Pa. Super. 511 (1991). In the case sub judice, defendants, on three occasions between August 26, 2004 and January 8, 2005, purposely availed themselves of loans from plaintiff in Pennsylvania. -3- 06-2734 CIVIL TERM Defendants chose to obtain the loans here rather than in another jurisdiction. Those contacts created a substantial connection with Pennsylvania. Defendants having purposely established minimum contacts in Pennsylvania, there is no significant burden upon them in adjudicating this dispute in this court which is convenient to plaintiff and can provide an efficient resolution of the controversy that does not impinge on any shared interest of the state of Florida in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Asserting jurisdiction will not offend the notions of fair play and substantial justice where defendants could have reasonably anticipated being called into Pennsylvania if they defaulted on the three separate loans they secured here. Their conduct supports the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in this suit.1 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2006, the preliminary objection of defendants to plaintiff's complaint, IS DISMISSED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Kimberly A. Bonner, Esquire For Plaintiff 1 See General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Keller, supra, which is supportive of this analysis. -4- 06-2734 CIVIL TERM Jeffrey T. McGuire, Esquire F or Defendants :sal -5- AUDREY J. MCPHERSON, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOWARD A. SKINNER AND DEBRA K. SKINNER, DEFENDANTS 06-2734 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PERSONAL JURISDICTION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2006, the preliminary objection of defendants to plaintiff's complaint, IS DISMISSED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Kimberly A. Bonner, Esquire For Plaintiff Jeffrey T. McGuire, Esquire F or Defendants :sal