Knight v. Northwest Sav. Bank

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Citation: 747 A.2d 384
• Parties: Lori J. KNIGHT, Appellant, v. NORTHWEST SAVINGS BANK, David P. Brandt, Esquire, Stephen S. Knight and Robin Luke Knight, his wife, Appellees.
• Decision Date: 15 February 2000

747 A.2d 384

Lori J. KNIGHT, Appellant,
v.
NORTHWEST SAVINGS BANK, David P. Brandt, Esquire, Stephen S. Knight and Robin Luke Knight, his wife, Appellees

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued January 11, 2000.

Filed February 15, 2000.

747 A.2d 385

Armand R. Cingolani, Butler, for appellant

Robert Varsek, Oil City, for Northwest Sav. Bank, appellee.

James R. Schadel, Pittsburgh, for David P. Brandt, Esq., appellee.

Before KELLY, JOHNSON and TAMILIA, JJ.

TAMILIA, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Lori J. Knight, appeals the February 10, 1999 Order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellee, Northwest Savings Bank, and sustaining the preliminary objections of, and dismissing the cause of action against appellees, David P. Brandt, Esquire, and Stephen S. and Robin L. Knight.

¶ 2 Appellant and appellee, Stephen Knight ("Knight"), were involved in a child support dispute, wherein Knight claimed appellant owed support and medical expenses for their son. The Domestic Relations section filed a Complaint for Support and a hearing before a master was scheduled for May 12, 1998. Appellee, David Brandt, Esquire ("Brandt"), was a contracted "IV-D" attorney for Domestic Relations.¹ Brandt issued a subpoena to appellee, Northwest Savings Bank ("Northwest"), on behalf of Domestic Relations, requesting the production of appellant's checking account statements and the testimony of a bank custodian at the master's hearing. Prior to the hearing, Brandt met with Northwest to retrieve the statements ordered pursuant to the subpoena and informed them that the testimony of a bank custodian was not necessary at the master's hearing. During the hearing, Brandt used the account statements to cross-examine appellant about her annual income. Thereafter, appellant filed a suit against Brandt, Knight and Northwest for trespass, invasion of privacy and breach of trust and confidential relations. The trial court dismissed appellant's cause of action against Brandt and Knight and granted Northwest's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the statements were obtained by a subpoena, which was properly issued pursuant to the Domestic Relations Code. This timely appeal followed.

¶ 3 On appeal, appellant presents the following questions for our review:

I. Did the lower court abuse its discretion when it found the subpoena rules were not violated under Pa.R.C.P. 234.1 and ignored the violation of the support rules which hold there is not discovery as a matter of law without leave of court under Pa.R.C.P.1910.9, 1910.11(j), 1910.12(c), 1930.5 and 4001 et seq., where a IV-D attorney Brandt and a private party Knight required Domestic Relations to issue a subpoena under the Domestic Relations power to short cut the support rules;

II. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in finding that the Domestic Relations section lawfully issued a subpoena to enforce a support obligation at the request of a IV-D attorney acting outside the scope of his employment because

747 A.2d 386

it did not have regulations or court supervision to control the issuance of subpoenas to the proper parties

III. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in finding IV-D attorney Brandt was in the employment of Domestic Relations when in fact he was acting as an agent for and doing the bidding of Stephen Knight, a private party;

IV. Did the lower court abuse its discretion when it found as a matter of law defendant Brandt, the IV-D attorney had to have a duty and to breach a duty in tort in order to be liable in tort, where the defendant Brandt actually was intentional tortfeasor; and

V. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in sustaining the Bank's preliminary objections law where the Bank waived acceptance of a Domestic Relations subpoena, and where in consideration of not having to employ an employee custodian of the records to come to the support hearing, the Bank simply gave the confidential records to defendant Brandt and defendant Knight to the detriment and actual harm of the plaintiff, a customer of the Bank?

(Appellant's Brief at 8.)

¶ 4 Appellant argues the trial court erred in sustaining the preliminary objections of Brandt because he failed to obtain leave of court for discovery of the account statements and failed to notify her before serving the subpoena on Northwest. In addition, her account statements were not relevant and, therefore, discovery would not have been proper. Brandt contends the account statements were properly subpoenaed pursuant to the power of the Domestic Relations Court as granted by the Domestic Relations Code.

¶ 5 Our review of the trial court's Order sustaining preliminary objections was recently stated as follows:

In order to determine whether the trial court properly sustained Appellee's preliminary objections, this court must consider as true all of the well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(c) provides that if an issue of fact is raised in preliminary objections, the trial court shall consider evidence "by depositions or otherwise." In conducting our appellate review, we observe that preliminary objections, the end result of which would be dismissal of the action, may be properly sustained by the trial court only if the case is free and clear of doubt.

Filter v. McCabe, 733 A.2d 1274, 1276 (Pa.Super.1999) (citations omitted).

¶ 6 In 1975, Congress enacted Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., which requires as a condition of aid that a state establish a comprehensive program for both child support enforcement and determination of paternity. Pennsylvania has provided the Department of Public Welfare the authority to conduct expedited support obligation hearings pursuant to the mandate set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 666, Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures...