Salva v. Brent Morgan Constr.

• Docket Number: 1962 EDA 2022,J-A10010-23
• Decision Date: 22 August 2023
• Parties: FRANCISCO SALVA AND LISA NAVARETTE v. BRENT MORGAN CONSTRUCTION, LLC AND MATTHEW T. MCGEEVER APPEAL OF: MATTHEW T. MCGEEVER
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

FRANCISCO SALVA AND LISA NAVARETTE v. BRENT MORGAN CONSTRUCTION, LLC AND MATTHEW T. MCGEEVER APPEAL OF: MATTHEW T. MCGEEVER

No. 1962 EDA 2022

No. J-A10010-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

August 22, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 11, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s) 2018-03165-CT

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

PANELLA, P.J.

Matthew T. McGeever appeals from the judgment^[1] entered in favor of Francisco Salva and Lisa Naverette (collectively "Appellees"). We affirm.

On February 17, 2017, Appellees, who lived in California, purchased a home in Malvern, Pennsylvania, with the intent of remodeling the home before moving in. Prior to closing on the home, Appellees hired Brent Morgan Construction, LLC ("BMC") to serve as the project manager, design consultant, and general contractor for the project pursuant to a project management agreement and renovation estimate. McGeever was the sole member and principal of BMC.

According to BMC's estimate, the renovation project should have taken seven to nine months to complete and cost approximately $850,000. Approximately one year after hiring BMC, Appellees had spent $983,586, including directly paying BMC $860,115.11, on the home, and BMC had only completed 35-40% of the work. Appellees discovered that BMC was manipulating the costs and misusing money for the project for McGeever's personal use. As a result, Appellees fired BMC from the project and hired a new contractor, Stephen Rudloff of Rudloff Custom Builders, to repair and finish BMC's work at Appellees' home. Appellees paid Rudloff approximately $1.3 million to undo and redo BMC's work.

On March 23, 2018, Appellees filed a writ of summons against BMC related to defective and unfinished work BMC performed on Appellees' home.

Appellees filed a complaint, and, thereafter, an amended complaint against BMC and McGeever. In the amended complaint, Appellees raised claims of breach of contract, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), conversion, and common law fraud against BMC, and claims for fraud, piercing the corporate veil, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment against McGeever.

On May 21, 2019, Appellees served BMC with requests for admissions regarding 627 payments made by BMC during its work on the project. Appellees sought admissions that the payments in question were not relevant to their home project. BMC failed to respond to the requests. Subsequently, BMC filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to Appellees' amended complaint to include new matter. On October 8, 2020, the trial court granted BMC 20 days to file an amended answer with new matter. BMC failed to comply with this order and did not file an amended answer with new matter.

As a result, on October 30, 2020, Appellees filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to all counts against BMC. Notably, in their motion, Appellees sought $599,276.71 in damages, highlighting that BMC's deemed admissions established it spent only $208,670.72 on Appellees' home project. The trial court granted Appellees' motion as to liability only and indicated the jury would determine damages against BMC. BMC did not appeal this order.

The matter was bifurcated and the claims, aside from the UTPCPL and piercing the corporate veil claims, proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, BMC was not represented and did not participate and McGeever represented himself. Appellees both testified and they presented Rudloff as a witness. Notably, Appellees also introduced numerous exhibits, including a report authored by an unknown employee of West Chester Design Build, a builder that had prepared an estimate for home repairs but did not actually perform any services at the home. McGeever testified on his own behalf. After presenting his defense, McGeever moved for a directed verdict on all counts. The trial court granted directed verdict in favor of McGeever on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, but denied it as to the remaining claims.

Ultimately, the jury found in favor of Appellees and against McGeever on the counts for fraud and unjust enrichment. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $1,521,494.18 in favor of Appellees. Notably, the jury did not apportion the damages between the fraud and unjust enrichment claims. The jury also awarded Appellees punitive damages of $250,000. Further, the jury awarded Appellees damages against BMC in the amount of $599,276.71, and additionally awarded them $600,000 in punitive damages.

On December 8, 2021, the trial court found in favor of McGeever on the Appellee's request to pierce the corporate veil and found in favor of Appellees on the UTPCPL claims. The trial court awarded Appellees $599,276.71. Subsequently, following a separate hearing for an award of attorney's fees under the UTPCPL, the trial court awarded Appellees $208,000.00 of attorney's fees.

McGeever filed a motion for post-trial relief, seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") or a new trial based upon various alleged errors by the trial court. Appellees filed a cross-motion for post-trial relief, arguing that the trial court improperly rejected their request to pierce the corporate veil. On July 8, 2022, the trial court denied McGeever's motion, and granted Appellee's cross-motion and awarded Appellees $599,276.71, plus attorney's fees of $208,343.08. McGeever timely appealed.

On appeal, McGeever raises the following questions for our review:

1. Did the Trial court err and/or abuse its discretion in denying [McGeever's] post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, where the jury returned an award of punitive damages without sufficient evidence of [McGeever's] wealth?

2. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in denying [McGeever's] post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial because the verdict sheet did not instruct the Jury to apportion damages?

3. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in denying [McGeever's] post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial because the trial court instructed the jury that BMC had previously been found liable to Appellees?

4. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in denying [McGeever's] post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial because [McGeever's] liability was sent to the same jury charged with deciding BMC's damages?

5. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in denying [McGeever's] post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial because the Trial Court sent BMC's damages to the same jury charged with Appellees' claim under the participation theory?

6. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in denying [McGeever's] post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial by precluding [McGeever] from presenting evidence of payments to subcontractors and material suppliers for labor and materials furnished and/or ordered for Appellees' property?

7. Did the Trial Court err and/or abuse its discretion in denying [McGeever's] post-trial motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial by allowing Appellee Lisa Naverette to testify to the contents of the West Chester Design Build Report?

Appellant's Brief at 4-5.

As a preliminary matter, "[a]ppellate review of a denial of JNOV is quite narrow. We may reverse only in the event the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case." Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 69th St. Retail Mall, L.P., 126 A.3d 959, 967 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). Likewise, "[o]ur standard of review when faced with an appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and palpably committed an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case or constituted an abuse of discretion." Schuenemann v. Dreemz, LLC, 34 A.3d 94, 98-99 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

In his first claim, McGeever argues that the jury erroneously awarded punitive damages where insufficient evidence of his wealth was presented at trial. See Appellant's Brief at 16-20. McGeever specifically asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury to consider his wealth without evidence to establish his wealth. See id. at 18-20. McGeever also contends that the trial court allowed Appellees' counsel to mention wealth during closing arguments. See id. at 20. Additionally, McGeever baldly contends that the trial court erred in including punitive damages on the verdict sheet because there was insufficient evidence to properly quantify such an award. See id.^[2]

Here McGeever failed to object to either the trial court's instruction or Appellees' counsel closing argument regarding his wealth. See Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 692, 709 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting that the failure to make a contemporaneous objection waives an issue on appeal); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c) (where an issue is not reviewable unless raised or preserved below, an appellate brief must set forth specific references to the places in the record where the question was timely and properly raised below so as to preserve the issue on appeal). Likewise, McGeever failed to object at trial to the verdict sheet or to the alleged error before the jury's discharge. See Bert Co. v. Turk, 257 A.3d 93, 112 (Pa. Super. 2021) ("A party waives post-trial relief based on inconsistent verdicts by failing to object at trial to the verdict sheet that...