Knight v. Northwest Sav. Bank

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

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.

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 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 to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement, (c),Expedited procedures, which provides:

¶ 7 The procedures specified in this subsection are the following:

(1) Administrative action by State agency. Procedures which give the State agency the authority to take the following actions relating to establishment of paternity or to establishment, modification, or enforcement of support orders, without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other judicial or administrative tribunal, and to recognize and enforce the authority of State agencies of other States to take the following actions:

* * *

(D) Access to information contained in certain records. To obtain access, subject to safeguards on privacy and information security, and subject to the nonliability of entities that afford such access under this subparagraph, to information contained in the following records (including automated access, in the case of records maintained in automated databases):

* * *

(II) information (including information on assets and liabilities) on such individuals held by financial institutions.

42 U.S.C. § 666(c)(1)(D)(ii)(II). See 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 4305, General administration of support matters.

¶ 8 Appellant argues the provisions of the Domestic Relations Code, specifically section 4305, do not supercede the requirements of Rule 1910.9, Discovery, which "permit[s] discovery in accordance with R.C.P. 4001 et seq. in any support matter which has been designated complex. In all other support matters discovery is permitted by leave of court." Explanatory Comment—1997. Furthermore, she claims Brandt was required to give her notice according to Rule 4009.21, Subpoena upon a person not a party for production of documents and things. Prior notice. Objections, (a) which provides "a party seeking production from a person not a party to the action shall give written notice to every other party ... at least twenty days before the date of service." Pa.R.C.P. 4009.21(a).

¶ 9 Section 4305 of the Domestic Relations Code provides:

(a) Powers and duties.—Subject to any inconsistent general rules and to the supervision and direction of the court, the domestic relations section shall have the power and duty to:

* * *

(8) Furnish the court with such information and assistance as it may require and generally perform such services as it may direct relating to support proceedings.

* * *

(b) Additional powers.—Subject to the supervision and direction of the court but without the need for prior judicial order, the domestic relations section shall have the power to expedite the establishment and enforcement of support to:

* * *

(5) Issue subpoenas for the records held by financial institutions with respect to individuals who are owed support or against whom or with respect to whom a support obligation is sought.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4305(a)(8) and (b)(5). The issuance of a subpoena is governed by Pa.R.C.P. 234.1, Subpoena to attend and testify, which provides:

(a) A subpoena is an order of the court commanding a person to attend and testify at a particular time and place. It may also require the person to produce documents or things which are under the possession, custody or control of that person.

Pa.R.C.P. 234.1(a). The note and explanatory comment to Rule 234.1 states that "it is not the intent of the Committee that the twenty-day notice requirement [of Rule 4009.21(a) ] be applied to a subpoena issued under Rule 234.1."

¶ 10 In this case, it is clear that, pursuant to section 4305, Domestic Relations issued the subpoena served on Northwest to obtain appellant's account statements. Brandt was under contract with the Domestic Relations section to represent either the complainant or the Commonwealth in a custody matter pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4306, Duties of Title IV-D attorney. He was required to "aid in enforcement of the duty of child support... and cooperate with the domestic relations section in the presentation of complaints...." Id., § 4306(a), Genera rule. In execution of these duties, Brandt solicited Domestic Relations to issue a subpoena for appellant's...