Rossi v. Milton S. Hershey (unpublished)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S57011-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 GALE ROSSI, Executrix of the Estate of Robert T. Rossi, Sr., Deceased, AND GALE ROSSI, Appellants v. MILTON S. HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 303 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Order entered on January 10, 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Civil Division, No. 2002 CV 1894 BEFORE: MUSMANNO, OLSON and STRASSBURGER*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: Filed: January 24, 2013 Gale Rossi ( Rossi ), executrix of the estate of Robert T. Rossi, Sr., appeals from the Order decreeing that Rossi and Milton S. Hershey Medical Center ( the Medical Center ) had reached a settlement agreement in favor of Rossi in the amount of $7,500.00. We affirm. The trial court set forth the pertinent history of this case, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/10/12, at 14. Rossi filed a timely appeal of the trial court s Order of January 10, 2012. Although not ordered to do so by the trial court, Rossi filed a Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal on February 9, 2012. Rossi raises the following issue on appeal: *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S57011-12 Whether the trial court erred in enforcing a purported settlement agreement where the applicable four[-]year statute of limitations expired prior to the attempted enforcement of the purported settlement agreement? Brief for Appellant at 4. Rossi contends that the lapse of more than six years from the date when the parties entered a settlement agreement precludes enforcement of such agreement. Rossi cites the four-year statute of limitations set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525 in support of her argument. Rossi further contends that the Medical Center never filed a petition to enforce the settlement agreement, and the issue of enforcement of the agreement was not raised until the Medical Center filed its Status Report with the trial court on June 27, 2011, more than four years after the parties entered the settlement agreement. Rossi also asserts that Rossi s failure to follow through with the settlement agreement was an implied repudiation of that agreement. Our standard of review of Rossi s claims is as follows: The enforceability of settlement agreements is determined according to principles of contract law. Because contract interpretation is a question of law, this Court is not bound by the trial court s interpretation. Our standard of review over questions of law is de novo and to the extent necessary, the scope of our review is plenary as [the appellate] court may review the entire record in making its decision. With respect to factual conclusions, we may reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact are predicated on an error of law or are unsupported by competent evidence in the record. -2- J-S57011-12 Mastroni-Mucker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 976 A.2d 510, 517-18 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citations omitted). The statute of limitations begins to run on a claim from the time the cause of action accrues. S.T. Hudson Engineers, Inc. v. Camden Hotel Dev. Assocs., 747 A.2d 931, 934 (Pa. Super. 2000). In general, an action based on contract accrues at the time of breach. Id. Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525, actions based upon contracts have a four-year statute of limitations. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525(a)(3), (8). Where a settlement agreement contains all of the requisites for a valid contract, a court must enforce the terms of the agreement. Step Plan Servs., Inc. v. Koresko, 12 A.3d 401, 409 (Pa. Super. 2010). In the instant case, the trial court determined that, in March 2005, the parties entered into a binding, enforceable settlement agreement. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/10/12, at 5. Rossi argues on appeal that the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement because the statute of limitations set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525 had expired. However, Rossi fails to provide any pertinent analysis or citation to case law to explain when the alleged cause of action in contract arose. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Nevertheless, upon review, we conclude that this claim lacks merit. The record before us demonstrates that Rossi caused the delay in performance of the settlement agreement. After the parties exchanged letters regarding the settlement agreement in March 2005, Rossi never -3- J-S57011-12 informed the Medical Center that Rossi intended to dishonor or repudiate the parties agreement.1 At the same time, Rossi did nothing to advance the underlying cause of action after March 2005. Thus, the trial court, on January 16, 2008, issued a Notice of proposed termination of the case. On March 6, 2008, Rossi filed a Notice of intention to proceed with the action. Such filing was the first explicit indication that Rossi did not intend to comply with the settlement agreement. Despite Rossi s Notice of intention to proceed with the action, Rossi in fact did not do so, causing the trial court to issue again a Notice of proposed termination on January 31, 2011. Although Rossi again indicated an intention to proceed, Rossi failed to do so. Thus, the trial court, on June 6, 2011, required the parties to submit status reports. In its Status Report, the Medical Center claimed that the case had settled in March 2005, and requested enforcement of the agreement. The record thus shows that the first explicit indication that Rossi did not intend to comply with the agreement occurred on March 6, 2008. The Medical Center s request to enforce the settlement agreement was set forth in its June 27, 2011 Status Report. This occurred within four years of Rossi s Rossi asserts baldly that Rossi had impliedly repudiated the settlement agreement within a few months after the settlement conference which had produced the settlement agreement. However, Rossi fails to cite any authority to support this argument. See Brief for Appellant at 10. Therefore, we deem this issue waived. See Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super. 2011) (holding that, where an appellate brief fails to provide discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority, the claim is waived); Korn v. Epstein, 727 A.2d 1130, 1135 (Pa. Super. 1999) (holding that arguments in an appellate brief lacking citation to pertinent legal authority are deemed waived). 1 -4- J-S57011-12 first indication of intending to breach the settlement agreement. Thus, there is no merit to Rossi s statute of limitations argument. In addition, we rely on the trial court s well-reasoned Opinion in support of our determination that Rossi s claim lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/10/12, at 5-6. Order affirmed. -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.