MARK W. AMBROSE AND RONALD A. KRAMER v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF EVANS CITY, PENNSYLVANIA

MARK W. AMBROSE AND RONALD A. KRAMER v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF EVANS CITY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 847 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 172 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/17/2010
	Appeal from the Order of April 17, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. GD 04-021511.
Before: BENDER, BOWES, and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Citizens National Bank of Evans City, Pennsylvania (“CNB”) appeals the order dated April 17, 2009 and entered on April 20, 2009, wherein the trial court clarified its April 18, 2009 award of attorneys’ fees totaling $201,704.79 to Mark W. Ambrose and Ronald A. Kramer, hereinafter collectively referred to as Appellees. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

JEFFREY T. PETOW, I. WISTAR MORRIS, III, MARTHA H. MORRIS, WILLIAM M. DAVISON, IV, PAUL SPEARS, ELIZABETH W. STICK, J. WILLIAM WAREHIME, JEFFREY HERR

JEFFREY T. PETOW, I. WISTAR MORRIS, III, MARTHA H. MORRIS, WILLIAM M. DAVISON, IV, PAUL SPEARS, ELIZABETH W. STICK, J. WILLIAM WAREHIME, JEFFREY HERR, AS CUSTODIAN FOR HIS DAUGHTER, JULIE HERR, WAREHIME ENTERPRISES, STEPHEN PORT, NORMAN S. WILDASIN, HOWARD C. PIZER, REUEL H. ZINN AND EVELYN H. ZINN : v. : : JOHN A. WAREHIME, CLAYTON J. : ROHRBACK, JR., JAMES G. STURGILL, : ARTHUR S. SCHAIER, T. EDWARD : LIPPY, THE ESTATE OF GEORGE E. : LAWRENCE, DECEASED AND CYRIL : NOEL : : v. : : HANOVER FOOD CORPORATION : : APPEAL OF: JEFFREY T. PETOW No. 1180 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 95 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/25/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered June 24, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No. 1996 SU 04275-2007
Before: BENDER, PANELLA and LAZARUS, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Jeffrey T. Petow, I. Wistar Morris, III, Martha H. Morris, William H. Davidson, IV, Paul Spears, Elizabeth W. Stick, J. William Warehime, Jeffrey Herr, as custodian for his daughter, Julie Herr, Warehime Enterprises, Stephen Port, Norman S. Wildasin, Howard C. Pizer, Reuel H. Zinn and Evelyn H. Zinn (collectively “Petow”) appeal from the order entered June 24, 2009, denying Petow’s petition for attorney fees in his suit against John A. Warehime, Clayton J. Rohrback, Jr., James G. Sturgill, Arthur S. Schaier, T. Edward Lippy, the Estate of George E. Lawrence, deceased and Cyril Noel (collectively “Defendants”). We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

THEODORE A. GALL, III A/K/A TED GALL AND THEODORE A. GALL IV A/K/A TED GALL, JR. v. DAVID A. CRAWFORD AND DIANE J. CRAWFORD, a/k/a DIANE CRAWFORD

THEODORE A. GALL, III A/K/A TED GALL AND THEODORE A. GALL IV A/K/A TED GALL, JR. v. DAVID A. CRAWFORD AND DIANE J. CRAWFORD, a/k/a DIANE CRAWFORD, HIS WIFE No. 1741 and 1811 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 187 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/16/2009
	Appeal from the Order dated September 10, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil No. GD07-00804
Before: DONOHUE, CLELAND and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: KELLY, J.
David A. Crawford and Diane J. Crawford, Appellants, and Theodore A. Gall, III and Theodore A. Gall, IV, Appellees, have filed cross appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granting in part and denying in part each party’s respective motions for post-trial relief. The appeals were consolidated by per curiam order on December 2, 2008. We affirm, finding that the prothonotary has the authority under Pa.R.C.P. 1037 to enter a default judgment in an equitable action and to set trial for damages.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

IN RE: ADOPTION OF M.M.H. APPEAL OF: JAMES E. MAHOOD AND WILDER & MAHOOD, P.C.

IN RE: ADOPTION OF M.M.H. APPEAL OF: JAMES E. MAHOOD AND WILDER & MAHOOD, P.C. No. 1331 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 177 Atlantic: 981 A.2d 261 Filed: 9/4/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered July 21, 2008, In the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County Civil Division, at No. A08-010(x3)
Before: KLEIN, ALLEN, and COLVILLE,* JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This is an adoption case that concerns the orphans’ court’s authority to determine, sua sponte, the reasonable value of an attorney’s legal services and to reduce the legal fees it finds excessive. In this case, the trial court, sitting en banc, concluded that the legal fees of James E. Mahood and Wilder and Mahood, P.C., (“Appellants”) were excessive when compared to similar cases in Allegheny County, and reduced them to an amount that it found to be reasonable. On appeal, Appellants maintain, in essence, that the trial court committed an error of law because it lacked the authority to take such measures. We conclude that based upon the facts of this case, the trial court did not possess the authority – statutory, policy-based, inherent or otherwise - to unilaterally decrease Appellants’ attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

1. -----------------------------------------------------

Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - JAMES BAYNE and ROSE BAYNE v. ASHLEE SMITH

JAMES BAYNE and ROSE BAYNE v. ASHLEE SMITH No. 1755 WDA 2007 2009 PA Super 11 Atlantic: 965 A.2d 265 Filed: 1/26/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment entered August 29, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Civil Division, at No. 2006-9338.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., ORIE MELVIN, and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellants, James and Rose Bayne (Landlord), appeal from the trial court’s refusal to include attorney’s fees as part of the judgment entered against Appellee, Ashlee Smith (Tenant), in this Landlord/Tenant dispute. After review, we find the trial court erred in refusing to permit recovery of attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 6/24/08 - ANNETTE SIRIO, Appellant at 1179 v. CARL A. SIRIO, Appellant at 1068

ANNETTE SIRIO, Appellant at 1179 v. CARL A. SIRIO, Appellant at 1068
No. 1068 & 1179 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 133 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/24/2008
Appeals from the Order entered May 18, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Family Court, at No. FD 00-008000-008.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BENDER and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
In these appeals, the parties challenge the trial court’s award of child support and attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Father raises the following issues:
A. Did the trial court commit an error of law by entering a confiscatory and anomalous child support award that relieved Mother of any financial responsibility for the children’s reasonable needs, bore no relationship to the Guideline amount for child support or to the prior child
support order, and effectively compelled Father’s current wife to contribute more than Mother?
B. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by adopting the Hearing Officer’s miscalculation of Father’s budget, thereby leading the court to conclude that the children’s needs were greater than reasonably necessary?
C. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to find that Mother’s budget for the children was excessive and unreasonable where it included (a) capital and nonrecurring expenses (including her legal fees); (b) projected, duplicative and aspirational expenditures; and
(c) household expenses that were not properly allocated among the members of Mother’s household?
D. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding counsel fees to Mother both (a) as an element of Mother’s budget for the children in her household and (b) as an award of legal fees, where there was insufficient proof of the requisite elements for Mother’s legal fee claim?

Mother raises the following issues in her cross-appeal:
E. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in failing to Order [sic] that the increase in child support should be retroactive to 2003.
F. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in failing to award counsel fees to Mother pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §4351(a) under the circumstances.
G. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion by failing to apply the law in the calculation of Father’s income and expenses.

.....
In sum, we affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand the case for a reconsideration of the children’s monthly reasonable expenses when in Mother’s care, in accordance with Bulgarelli, supra, and reconsideration of Mother’s claim for counsel fees pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4351, in a manner consistent with this memorandum.

Superior Court 05/05/08 - AMERICAN AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY, ROYAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY AND ROYAL INDEMNITY COMP

AMERICAN AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY, ROYAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, SAFEGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY AND ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY v. JERRY’S SPORT CENTER, INC., JERRY’S SPORT CENTER NORTHEAST, INC., BONITZ BROTHERS, INC. OUTDOOR SPORTS HEADQUARTERS, INC., SIMMONS GUN SPECIALITIES, INC., NATIONAL ASSOC. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NATIONAL SPINAL CORD INJURY ASSOC., AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-15 APPEAL OF: JERRY’S SPORT CENTER, INC., JERRY’S SPORT CENTER NORTHEAST, INC., BONITZ BROTHERS, INC., OUTDOOR SPORTS HEADQUARTERS, INC. AND SIMMONS GUN SPECIALITIES, INC.
No. 1098 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 94 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/5/2008
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 7, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna CountyCivil Division at No. 2001-939
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Jerry’s Sport Center, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Jerry’s Sport Center Northeast, Inc., Bonitz Brothers, Inc., Outdoor Sports Headquarters, Inc., and Simmons Gun Specialties, Inc. (collectively, “Jerry’s Sport”), appeal from the July 7, 2006 judgment entered in favor of its commercial liability insurer, American and Foreign Insurance Company, Royal Insurance Company of America, Safeguard Insurance Company, and Royal Indemnity Company (collectively, “Royal”). For the reasons that follow, we conclude the trial court erred by granting Royal’s request for reimbursement of attorney fees that Royal had paid on behalf of Jerry’s Sport while Royal undertook a defense for Jerry’s Sport in an underlying suit pursuant to Royal’s putative reservation of rights for reimbursement of the attorneys fees from Jerry’s Sport should the court later (as it did) declare there was no coverage under the policy. Accordingly, we reverse the July 7, 2006 judgment entered in Royal’s favor.