Background
J-A12021-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 H&H MANUFACTURING COMPANY, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC., AND MARK TOMEI, PERSONAL : PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF : VINCENT TOMEI, DECEASED : : : v. : : : No. 2144 EDA 2024 THOMAS R. TOMEI AND JEANETTE M. : TOMEI : : Appellants : Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 14, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2013-005775 H&H MANUFACTURING COMPANY, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC., AND MARK TOMEI, PERSONAL : PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF : VINCENT TOMEI, DECEASED : : : v. : : : No. 2032 EDA 2024 THOMAS R. TOMEI AND JEANETTE M. : TOMEI : : : APPEAL OF: ESTATE OF MARIE TOMEI : Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 14, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2013-005775 H&H MANUFACTURING COMPANY, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC., AND MARK TOMEI, AS PERSONAL : PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF : VINCENT TOMEI, DECEASED : : Appellant : : J-A12021-26 : v. : No. 2033 EDA 2024 : : THOMAS R.
Tomei’s (h/w) (collectively, Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants) petition for counsel fees and costs in the amount of $205,000.00 following a remand order from this Court. After careful consideration, we vacate and remand with instructions. A prior panel of this Court summarized the relevant facts of this unnecessarily protracted matter: This appeal flows out of a dispute over the ownership and management of H&H Manufacturing Company, Inc.[, a company that manufactures parts for industrial turbines]. Appellant Vincent Tomei is the father of Appellee Thomas R. Tomei and father-in- law of Appellee Jeanette M. Vincent Tomei is a long-time owner, director[,] and officer of H&H and has been involved with the management of H&H since December 31, 1969. Vincent hired his son, Thomas, as an employee of H&H and Thomas later became the president of H&H. However, on June 3, 2013, the board of directors of H&H terminated Thomas as the president of H&H. This litigation over ownership of the company and individual claims by Thomas and Vincent ensued. As we have previously explained, this litigation began when: [H&H and Vincent] instituted the current action on June 11, 2013, by filing a writ of summons. Within [their] third ____________________________________________ given to the parties on July 5, 2024.
The Court’s Holding
conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge framed the relevant legal issue as follows: I think the issue is if there was an error based upon the fact that someone in [the] O[ffice of] J[udicial] S[upport] thought this entire matter was under seal and that’s what [Attorney] Martinez reflected in testimony here[, t]hat’s the real issue I have to decide[—] whether that was a clerical error or not and whether any of the parties were at fault [with regard to the] issue that [Attorney] Lederer raises. On May 31, 2019, the day after the hearing, the court issued an order directing the Delaware County Office of Judicial Support to correct the docket and forward copies of the corrected docket to the Superior Court. In the order, the trial judge acknowledged that the trial court dockets shall be corrected and supplemented to “reflect that all filings were properly filed and time-stamped with the Office of Judicial Support, specifically, Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Motions and Concise Statements of [Errors] Complained of on Appeal and Intervenor’s Concise Statement of [Errors] Complained of on [A]ppeal.” Order, 5/31/19 (emphasis added). On June 4, 2019, a letter and supplemental record, including the corrected docket, was sent to the Superior Court Prothonotary by the Delaware County Office of Judicial Support. The letter states: – 25 – J-A12021-26 Pursuant to our attached order of the Honorable Spiros Angelos[,] dated May 31, 2019, attached please find a newly printed version of the docket in the above[-]captioned case. As you will see, we have, with court permission, altered the docket entries for three post-trial motions from December, 2017.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge framed the relevant legal issue as follows: I think the issue is if there was an error based upon the fact that someone in [the] O[ffice of] J[udicial] S[upport] thought this entire matter was under seal and that’s what [Attorney] Martinez reflected in testimony here[, t]hat’s the real issue I have to decide[—] whether that was a clerical error or not and whether any of the parties were at fault [with regard to the] issue that [Attorney] Lederer raises.
- On May 31, 2019, the day after the hearing, the court issued an order directing the Delaware County Office of Judicial Support to correct the docket and forward copies of the corrected docket to the Superior Court.
- In the order, the trial judge acknowledged that the trial court dockets shall be corrected and supplemented to “reflect that all filings were properly filed and time-stamped with the Office of Judicial Support, specifically, Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Motions and Concise Statements of [Errors] Complained of on Appeal and Intervenor’s Concise Statement of [Errors] Complained of on [A]ppeal.” Order, 5/31/19 (emphasis added).
Why It Matters
Superior Court vacates a $205,000 attorney-fee award in a contract case Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.