HARRISBURG – A panel trio of judges from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania decided that a Franklin County court correctly dismissed a negligence case against the estate of a deceased man involved in a motor vehicle accident, when it was shown that an attempt to amend the complaint was made after the relevant statute of limitations had expired.
Superior Court judges Anne E. Lazarus, Deborah A. Kunselman and Mary P. Murray ruled on April 13 to uphold the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas’s decision, in Jeffrey and Ann Yorty’s action against Allison B. Kohler (deceased in care of surviving spouse, Jo Ann Kohler.)
“On Nov. 22, 2017, Jeffrey Yorty (Yorty) was driving a car in Franklin County, when a car driven by Allison B. Kohler (Mr. Kohler) struck Yorty’s car from behind. Yorty alleged the accident caused him serious injuries,” Murray stated.
“Mr. Kohler died on April 1, 2019. About three months later, on June 20, 2019, plaintiffs, through counsel, commenced this negligence/loss of consortium action by writ of summons. Importantly, the caption of the writ named as the party defendant: ‘Allison B. Kohler, Deceased, in care of surviving spouse, Jo Ann Kohler.”
At that time, when a sheriff served the writ on Mr. Kohler’s widow, Jo Ann Kohler (Mrs. Kohler), an estate had not yet been created for the late Mr. Kohler. According to the Superior Court, the plaintiffs “do not dispute that the writ ‘erroneously’ named a deceased person as the defendant.”
On Sept. 16, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Register of Wills to compel Mr. Kohler’s heirs/representatives to open an estate and on Sept. 27, 2019, the Register of Wills granted Mrs. Kohler letters testamentary in the Estate of Allison B. Kohler (Estate).
The plaintiffs then filed a complaint on Oct. 15, 2019 on the same docket as their erroneous writ, which altered the caption, changing the name of the defendant from “Allison B. Kohler, Deceased, in care of surviving spouse, Jo Ann Kohler” to “The Estate of Allison B. Kohler, Deceased.”
However, the complaint did not name Mrs. Kohler as the personal representative of the Estate.
“On Nov. 18, 2019, defendant filed an answer and new matter. Unlike the caption of the complaint, the caption of this pleading reflected the original caption from the writ, and identified defendant as: “Allison B. Kohler, deceased, in care of surviving spouse, Jo Ann Kohler.” Thereafter, the parties engaged in discovery,” Murray said.
“On May 13, 2020, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant argued appellants’ action was a legal nullity because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant asserted that appellants improperly filed the writ against a deceased person, Mr. Kohler, and the attempt by appellants to amend the party defendant in the complaint was improper.”
The Superior Court pointed out that that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs’ action expired on April 1, 2020.
The plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to summary judgment on June 5, 2020, but two and a half months later, on Aug. 18, 2020, the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed appellants’ complaint with prejudice – leading the plaintiffs to appeal to the Superior Court.
The appellants argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, because the defendant was fully aware of the identity of the person they “intended” to name and that even though they erroneously named a deceased person as defendant in the writ, they should be permitted to amend the caption.
But the Superior Court explained it is “well established in Pennsylvania that, a dead man cannot be a party to an action and any such attempted proceeding is completely void and of no effect.”
According to the trial court opinion, “When the writ of summons and complaint were filed against ‘Allison B. Kohler, deceased, in care of surviving spouse, Jo Ann Kohler,’ those documents failed to designate a legal, competent entity as defendant. Therefore, appellants are not permitted to substitute a different party after the statute of limitations has already run.”
Murray stated that the trial court’s belief was “supported by the record and law.”
“Likewise, appellants did not file a new action against Mr. Kohler’s Estate and Mrs. Kohler as personal representative. Rather, appellants filed their complaint at the same docket as the writ, which was a legal nullity. Further, we are unpersuaded by appellants’ claim that defendant’s filing of responsive pleadings and engaging in discovery excused the jurisdictional defect. It is well-settled that the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may never be waived,” Murray said.
“For the above reasons, appellants’ issue does not merit relief. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing appellants’ complaint.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 1131 MDA 2020
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas case 2019-02517
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com