Photo: nobeastsofierce – Fotolia

An appellate court tasked with reviewing a bench verdict when the trial judge has issued a scant opinion and is no longer available to explain the reasoning behind it has broad power to review the entire record, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled.

In Dolan v. Hurd Millwork, the justices unanimously reversed a ruling in which the Superior Court said it was forced to vacate a nearly $750,000 judgment and order a new trial because the trial judge who rendered the verdict failed to adequately explain his reasoning and had since retired from the bench.

According to court documents, now-former Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge James F. Proud entered a $500,000 general verdict in favor of plaintiff Leo J. Dolan Jr. and against defendants Bentley Homes, Garvin Mitchell Corp., Chadwell Associates, Chadwell Realty and Harrison Community Association, in a dispute over construction defects in Dolan's custom-built home. Proud did not, however, address the defendants' cross-claim against window installer Hurd Millwork Co., which had settled with Dolan and did not participate in the trial.

Proud ultimately molded the verdict to $748,287 and the defendants—with the exception of Hurd Millwork—appealed. But the Superior Court, finding that Proud had issued only “a conclusory three-page opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a),” remanded the case with instructions for Proud to file a supplemental opinion. By that point, however, Proud had retired and no one else on the bench was available to prepare a supplemental opinion.

The same three-judge Superior Court panel then issued a follow-up opinion Feb. 17, 2017, vacating Proud's verdict and remanding for a new trial.

“Because the trial judge failed to explain his decision throughout this case and is no longer on the bench to give us the information necessary for our review, the record remains insufficient for us to address appellants' claims,” Superior Court President Judge Susan Peikes Gantman said in that opinion.

But Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, writing for the high court in an Oct. 17 opinion, took guidance from the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling in Armbruster v. Horowitz, which dealt with appellate review of a jury verdict where the trial judge resigned from the bench before he could rule on a post-trial weight of evidence motion.

The Armbruster court ultimately determined that ordering a new trial in such a case “would be extremely disruptive to the integrity of verdicts and to the judicial process.” Instead, the justices in that case said the appellate court should review the weight of evidence claim in the first instance.

“Applying the reasoning of Armbruster to this case we conclude that where a Rule 1925(a) opinion is deemed inadequate and the trial judge is unavailable to provide a supplemental opinion, the appellate court should review the legal issues raised in the appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal,” Mundy said. ”As the Superior Court has noted, when deciding issues of law an appellate court is not required to defer to the conclusions of a trial court. This is consistent with the fact that for questions of law, an appellate court's standard of review is de novo and its scope of review is plenary. Applying this standard and scope, the Superior Court will be able to review the entire record and ultimately determine whether the trial court correctly decided the legal issues raised in Bentley's appeal.”

To the extent that the appeal challenges any factual findings made by the trial judge, the appellate court should determine whether they're supported by competent evidence, Mundy added.

Mundy was joined by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd, Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

Dolan's attorney, Anthony S. Pinnie of Pinnie Law Offices in Media, called the Supreme Court's decision “very logical.”

“Why vacate a perfectly sound verdict—especially in a case where the plaintiffs put on the only evidence, in terms of documents and witnesses?,” Pinnie said.

Counsel for all the defendants other than Hurd Millwork, Kimberly L. Russell of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein in Blue Bell, could not be reached for comment, nor could Hurd Millwork's attorney, Jeanne Schubert Barnum of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis in Philadelphia.

(Copies of the 12-page opinion in Dolan v. Hurd Millwork, PICS No. 18-1290, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)