J-A24002-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
E.C. BONES CONSTRUCTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CONTRACTORS, INC. D/B/A/ E.C. PENNSYLVANIA
BONES, INC.
Appellee
v.
BRIDGEPORT MARKETPLACE, LLC
Appellant No. 1973 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order May 14, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2012-32189
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014
Appellant, Bridgeport Marketplace, LLC, appeals from the order
entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, overruling its
preliminary objections to the complaint filed by Appellee, E.C. Bones
Construction Contractors, Inc. d/b/a E.C. Bones, Inc. We affirm.
The trial court opinion fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts
and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate
them. Nevertheless, we briefly summarize the facts most pertinent to this
case as follows. On March 18, 2010, Appellant (owner) and Appellee
called the Fourth Street
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A24002-14
inter
alia, an arbitration provision requiring all claims arising out of the
Construction Agreement to proceed to arbitration.
That same day, Fourth Street Marketplace, LLC, as borrower, Erik C.
Bones and Faith C. Bones as sureties, Abington Bank, and Appellant entered
of the Forbearance Agreement, in the event Appellant terminated Appellee
subcontractors for work performed at the project through the date of said
, dated May 18, 2010, at ¶ 7).
Significantly, the Forbearance Agreement does not contain an arbitration
clause. On September 13, 2010, Appellant terminated Appellee from the
Project.
On September 14, 2010, Scott Building Corp. t/a Scott Contractors,
I
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas at docket No. 2010-
provided to the Project, pursuant to a subcontract agreement. On December
27, 2010, Appellee filed a joinder complaint against Appellant, Abington
Bank, and the Borough of Bridgeport. Appellee amended the joinder
complaint on January 26, 2011, alleging breach of the Construction
-2-
J-A24002-14
Agreement, conspiracy to cause breach of the Construction Agreement, and
intentional interference with the Construction Agreement. Appellant and the
additional joinder defendants filed preliminary objections on February 24,
2011, seeking, inter alia, dismissal of the amended joinder complaint based
on the arbitration clause in the Addendum to the Construction Agreement.
On November 27, 2012, the court sustained the preliminary objections,
dismissed the amended joinder complaint, and sent the joinder claims
against Appellant and the other joinder defendants to arbitration.
On November 30, 2012, Appellee sent Appellant a letter demanding
of the Forbearance Agreement. On December 4, 2012, counsel for Appellee
sent another demand letter to Appellant seeking $105,970.90 due and owing
to several subcontractors for work performed on the Project. Appellant did
not remit payment to the subcontractors. On December 13, 2012, Erik C.
Bones and Faith C. Bones assigned to Appellee their right, title and interest
to all claims and actions against Appellant, arising under ¶ 7 of the
Forbearance Agreement.
On December 19, 2012, Appellee filed the current complaint against
Appellant, alleging breach of the Forbearance Agreement and demanding all
monies due to the subcontractors. On January 23, 2012, Appellant filed
preliminary objections for dismissal of the current complaint, based on the
struction
-3-
J-A24002-14
Agreement claims against Appellant to arbitration. Following argument, the
grounded on the Forbearance Agreement, which did not contain an
arbitration provision. On May 17, 2013, Appellant filed a petition for
permission to file an interlocutory appeal, or alternatively, for
reconsideration of the order overruling its preliminary objections. The trial
co
Appellant filed a petition for immediate review in this Court, which this Court
granted by per curiam order dated July 18, 2013.1 On July 23, 2013, the
trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained
of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Appellant timely filed on
July 26, 2013.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING
INARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE
OF A DEMURRER PURSUANT TO THE COORDINATE
JURISDICTION/RULE OF CASE DOCTRINE?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING
____________________________________________
1
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7320(a) (permitting immediate appeal from order
denying application to compel arbitration). Compare Rosy v. National
Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 771 A.2d 60 (Pa.Super. 2001) (quashing appeal
from order compelling arbitration; explaining order directing arbitration is
interlocutory and is not immediately appealable because parties are forced
into, rather than out of, court).
-4-
J-A24002-14
OF A DEMURRER SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE
ARBITRATION CLAUSE?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING
OF A DEMURRER REGARDING A PRIOR PENDING ACTION?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING
OF A DEMURRER PURSUANT TO THE COORDINATE
RELEASE CLAUSE OF THE FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT?
Initially we observe:
When considering the appropriateness of a ruling on
preliminary objections, the appellate court must apply the
same standard as the trial court.
Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the
legal sufficiency of the complaint. When considering
preliminary objections, all material facts set forth in the
challenged pleadings are admitted as true, as well as all
inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Preliminary
objections which seek the dismissal of a cause of action
should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and
free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove
facts legally sufficient to establish the right to relief. If any
doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be
sustained, it should be resolved in favor of overruling the
preliminary objections.
Richmond v. McHale, 35 A.3d 779, 783 (Pa.Super. 2012) (quoting
Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937, 941 (Pa.Super. 2011)). Additionally:
arbitration for an abuse of discretion and to determine
substantial evidence. In doing so, we employ a two-part
test to determine whether the trial court should have
compelled arbitration. The first determination is whether a
valid agreement to arbitrate exists. The second
-5-
J-A24002-14
determination is whether the dispute is within the scope of
the agreement.
* * *
Arbitration is a matter of contract, and parties to a
contract cannot be compelled to arbitrate a given issue
absent an agreement between them to arbitrate that issue.
Even though it is now the policy of the law to favor
settlement of disputes by arbitration and to promote the
swift and orderly disposition of claims, arbitration
agreements are to be strictly construed and such
agreements should not be extended by implication.
Elwyn v. DeLuca, 48 A.3d 457, 461 (Pa.Super. 2012) (internal citations
omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas P.
The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of
those questions. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed April 4, 2014, at 9-16)
(finding: arbitration provision in Addendum to Construction Agreement
agreement in Scott case; conversely, current case against Appellant is based
on Forbearance Agreement executed by Fourth Street Marketplace, LLC, Erik
C. Bones and Faith C. Bones (who have since assigned their interests under
Forbearance Agreement to Appellee), Abington Bank, and Appellant;
arbitration provision in Addendum to Construction Agreement does not apply
in current cas
-6-
J-A24002-14
joinder complaint in Scott case, and no violation of coordinate jurisdiction
rule occurred; lis pendens doctrine similarly fails, where current case and
Scott case are based on different contracts). Therefore, with respect to
2
In its fourth issue, Appellant argues ¶ 15(a) of the Forbearance
assignee), from all claims arising under the Forbearance Agreement.
Appellant asserts that under ¶ 15(b) of the Forbearance Agreement, Erik C.
Bones and Faith C. Bones expressly agreed not to litigate released claims.
Appellant contends these clauses of the Forbearance Agreement bar
Appellee from litigating its cause of action on behalf of Erik C. Bones and
Faith C. Bones. Appe
been dismissed for these reasons as well. We disagree.
Preliminarily, we observe that appellate briefs must conform in all
material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355
(Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 564 Pa. 696, 764 A.2d 50 (2000) (citing
____________________________________________
2
more than the amount claimed in the Scott case (exclusive of interest and
costs) and cannot be duplicated.
-7-
J-A24002-14
Pa.R.A.P. 2101). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119 (addressing specific
requirements of each subsection of brief on appeal). Regarding the
argument section of an appellate brief, Rule 2119(a) provides:
Rule 2119. Argument
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into
as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and
therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Importantly:
The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along
with discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. This
Court will not consider the merits of an argument which
fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority. Failure to
cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim
on appeal.
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal
denied, 620 Pa. 724, 69 A.3d 603 (2013) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super
procedure, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived
on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those where
party has failed to cite any authority in support of contention); Estate of
Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating rules of
appellate procedure make clear appellant must support each question raised
by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority; absent reasoned
-8-
J-A24002-14
review is hampered, necessitating waiver of issue on appeal).
Instantly, Appellant failed to cite any legal authority to support its
argument that ¶ 15(a) of the Forbearance Agreement releases it from
Appellant cites no legal authority to support its contention that ¶ 15(b) of
the Forbearance Agreement bars Appellee, as assignee of Erik C. Bones and
Faith C. Bones, from litigating this cause of action against Appellant.
n appeal with citation to
relevant legal authority precludes meaningful review and constitutes waiver
on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Whitley, supra;
Lackner, supra; Haiko, supra.
Moreover:
[T]he interpretation of any contract is a question of law
need not defer to the conclusions of the trial court and are
free to draw our own inferences. In interpreting a
contract, the ultimate goal is to ascertain and give effect to
the intent of the parties as reasonably manifested by the
language of their written agreement. When construing
agreements involving clear and unambiguous terms, this
Court need only examine the writing itself to give effect to
ourt must construe the
contract only as written and may not modify the plain
meaning under the guise of interpretation.
Nevyas v. Morgan, 921 A.2d 8, 15 (Pa.Super. 2007) (quoting Currid v.
Meeting House Restaurant, Inc., 869 A.2d 516, 519 (Pa.Super. 2005),
appeal denied, 584 Pa. 694, 882 A.2d 478 (2005)).
-9-
J-A24002-14
Instantly, ¶ 15 of the Forbearance Agreement provides, in pertinent
part:3
15. RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION. In order to
induce Bank and Assignee to enter into this Agreement,
Obligors do hereby agree as follows:
(a) Release. Obligors hereby fully, finally and
forever acquit, quitclaim, release and discharge Bank and
Assignee and their officers, directors, managers,
employees, agents, counsel, successors and assigns of and
from any and all obligations, claims, liabilities, damages,
demands, debts, liens, deficiencies or cause or causes of
action to, of or for the benefit (whether directly or
indirectly) of any obligor, at law or in equity, known or
unknown, contingent or otherwise, whether asserted or
unasserted, whether now known or hereafter discovered,
whether statutory in contract or in tort, as well as any
other kind or character of action now held, owned or
possessed (whether directly or indirectly) by any obligor
on account of, arising out of, related to or concerning,
whether directly or indirectly, proximately or remotely (i)
the negotiation, review, preparation or documentation of
the loan documents or any other documents or
agreements executed in connection therewith, (ii) the
administration of the loan documents; (iii) the
documents or agreements executed in connection
therewith, and/or (iv) any action or inaction by Bank or
Assignee in connection with any such documents,
(b) Covenant Not to Litigate. Obligors do hereby
agree that they will never prosecute, nor voluntarily aid in
the prosecution of, any action or proceeding relating to the
Released Claims, whether by claim, counterclaim, or
____________________________________________
3
The Forbearance Agreement denotes Fourth Street Marketplace, LLC and
- 10 -
J-A24002-14
otherwise except that which is in the nature of a defense
to any claim by Bank, Assignee, or any third party.
(Forbearance Agreement at ¶ 15(a), (b)) (internal capitalization omitted).
Paragraph 15(a) of the Forbearance Agreement makes clear that Erik C.
Bones and Faith C. Bones (as Obligors) did not agree to release Appellant
(as Assignee) from all claims arising out of the Forbearance Agreement.
Rather, ¶ 15(a) releases Appellant from only claims arising out of: (1)
negotiation, review, preparation or documentation of the loan documents or
any other documents or agreements executed in connection therewith; (2)
administration of the loan documents; (3) enforcement, protection or
documents, or any other documents or agreements executed in connection
therewith; or (4) any action or inaction by Abington Bank or Appellant in
connection with any such documents, instruments and agreements. See id.
agreement to compensate
to do with the loan documents or process.
Furthermore, the Forbearance Agreement contains an exclusive
jurisdiction and jury trial waiver provision, which demonstrates the parties
anticipated that claims arising out of the Forbearance Agreement might
require litigation in court. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 32. Read as a whole, the
- 11 -
J-A24002-14
Forbearance Agreement unambiguously demonstrates the parties intended
to release Appellant from litigation as to only the four specific types of claims
described in ¶ 15(a). See Nevyas, supra. Therefore, even if Appellant had
properly preserved its fourth issue for review, we would nevertheless deny
relief on this claim. Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/19/2014
- 12 -
Circulated 09/12/2014 12:51 PM
Circulated 09/12/2014 12:51 PM
Circulated 09/12/2014 12:51 PM
Circulated 09/12/2014 12:51 PM
Circulated 09/12/2014 12:51 PM
Circulated 09/12/2014 12:51 PM
Circulated 09/12/2014 12:51 PM