The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-4652 BRANDY L. ROBINSON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : No. 2016-04652 : SCOTT T. ROBINSON, : CIVIL ACTION – LAW Defendant : : IN RE: DEFENDANT ROBINSON’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE EBERT and BREWBAKER, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT BREWBAKER, J., December , 2016 In the present case, Plaintiff Brandy Robinson has sued Defendant Scott Robinson, her brother, for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Before the Court are the preliminary objections of Defendant Scott T. Robinson to the amended complaint In February 2009, Lonnie L. Robinson, a resident of York County, died having executed a Last Will and Testament in July 2006. A Family Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) was made in April 2009 between Scott T. Robinson as Executor (and in his individual capacity) and Brandy Robinson as beneficiary. The Agreement was filed with the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of York County. In the Agreement, Scott Robinson agreed to pay Brandy Robinson’s inheritance from the Lonnie L. Robinson estate in yearly payments of $10,000 for twenty years, every April, with a first payment of $100,000. The total amount to be paid was $300,000. The Agreement provided no recourse to Plaintiff, an unsecured creditor, if Defendant defaulted in making yearly payments or filed for bankruptcy. Plaintiff Brandy Robinson filed the instant complaint in Cumberland County in August 1 2016, alleging that Defendant Scott Robinson has failed to make payment in 2016. Defendant Scott Robinson filed preliminary objections to the original complaint, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendant then filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint, and oral argument was heard on the preliminary objections on December 2, 2016. Defendant raises two issues in his preliminary objections. First, Defendant argues that the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction and the matter should be transferred to the Orphans’ Court Division in York County. Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claim for accelerated payments is legally insufficient as the Agreement does not have an acceleration clause. Regarding the jurisdiction issue, Defendant argues that the current action concerns the enforcement of a Family Settlement Agreement relating to the administration of an estate settled in York County, and therefore the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiff counters that jurisdiction is appropriate in Cumberland County because the estate in York has been distributed and closed, and the instant case is a simple breach of contract between two private parties and does not involve the administration of the estate. Plaintiff further argues that venue is appropriate in Cumberland County because payment is due in Cumberland County and not in York County. We agree with Defendant that the Courts lack jurisdiction and the appropriate venue for this matter resides with the Orphans’ Court Division of the York County Court of Common Pleas. 1 At oral argument, both parties agreed that Defendant had made the payment for 2016 on November 17, 2016. 2 Jurisdiction in the Orphans’ Court Division is exclusively a matter of statute. Estate of Soupcoff, 477 A.2d 1388 (Pa. Super. 1984). The statute states, in relevant part, that the Orphans’ Court has mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction over “\[t\]he administration and distribution of the real and personal property of decedents’ estates ….” 20 Pa. C.S. § 711(1). “\[A\]ny action contesting \[the\] accounting of funds incident to settling \[an\] estate comes squarely within the jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court.” In re Shahan, 631 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super. 1993); see also 20 Pa. C.S. § 712(3) (stating that the Orphans’ Court has nonmandatory jurisdiction over “\[t\]he disposition of any case where there are substantial questions concerning matters enumerated in section 711”) (emphasis added). As explained by another court, \[w\]here the right of one of the parties to such an agreement compromising pending litigation is contested, the true interpretation of the agreement should be found by the court in which the litigation was pending… A party seeking to enforce an agreement compromising pending litigation is not at liberty to institute in any court any action he sees fit;… A compromise or settlement of litigation is always referable to the action or proceeding in the court where the compromise was effected; it is through that court the carrying out of the agreement should thereafter be controlled. Otherwise the compromise, instead of being an aid to litigation, would be only productive of litigation as a separate and additional impetus. In re Bronstein’s Estate, 31 Pa. D. & C.2d 664, 666 (Pa. Orph. 1963) (quoting Melnick v. Binenstock, 179 A. 77, 78 (Pa. 1935). The present matter involves the enforcement of a Family Settlement Agreement entered into under the jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court Division of the York County Court of Common Pleas. The Agreement includes a caption from the York County Orphans’ Court and implicates the distribution of an estate settled in York County. Though the Agreement was signed by Scott Robinson in his individual capacity, it was also signed in his capacity as executor of the estate. 3 The payment of funds to Plaintiff may implicate other payments due from the estate. For these reasons, the York County Orphans’ Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the present matter. The proper remedy where, as here, a matter is commenced in an improper court division, is prescribed by statute in 42 Pa C.S. §5103. Section 5103 states: (a) General rule. — If an appeal or other matter is taken to or brought in a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth which does not have jurisdiction of the appeal or other matter, the court or magisterial district judge shall not quash such appeal or dismiss the matter, but shall transfer the record thereof to the proper tribunal of this Commonwealth, where the appeal or other matter shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee tribunal on the date when the appeal or other matter was first filed in a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth. A matter which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth but which is commenced in any other tribunal of this Commonwealth shall be transferred by the other tribunal to the proper court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth where it shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth on the date when first filed in the other tribunal. *** (c) Interdivisional transfers. — If an appeal or other matter is taken to, brought in, or transferred to a division of a court to which such matter is not the court shall not quash such appeal or dismiss the allocated by law, matter, but shall transfer the record thereof to the proper division of the court , where the appeal or other matter shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee division on the date first filed in a court or magisterial district. 42 Pa. C.S. § 5103 (emphasis added). Consequently, the proper remedy is to transfer the matter to the correct division, which here is the Orphans’ Court Division of the York County Court of 2 Common Pleas. An order to that effect will therefore be entered. 2 Because this Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction, it will not address the issue of the acceleration clause. 4 ORDER AND NOW, this _____ day of December, 2016, upon consideration ofDefendant Scott SUSTAINED Robinson’s Preliminary Objections, the Preliminary Objections are in part. The action is transferred to the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pa. The Prothonotary shall transmit to the Clerk of said court the entire record, including all the pleadings and other papers filed by all of the parties, together with a certified copy of the docket entries in this action. BY THE COURT, __________________________ Jessica E. Brewbaker, J. 5 BRANDY L. ROBINSON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : No. 2016-04652 : SCOTT T. ROBINSON, : CIVIL ACTION – LAW Defendant : : IN RE: DEFENDANT ROBINSON’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE EBERT and BREWBAKER, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _____ day of December, 2016, upon consideration ofDefendant Scott SUSTAINED Robinson’s Preliminary Objections, the Preliminary Objections are in part. The action is transferred to the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pa. The Prothonotary shall transmit to the Clerk of said court the entire record, including all the pleadings and other papers filed by all of the parties, together with a certified copy of the docket entries in this action. BY THE COURT, __________________________ Jessica E. Brewbaker, J. David R. Galloway, Esquire Walters & Galloway, PLLC 54 E. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For the Plaintiff David A. Mills, Esquire Blakey, Yost, Bupp & Rausch 17 E. Market Street York, PA 17401 For the Defendant