Rellick-Smith v. Rellick and Vassal – Pa. Supreme Court – October 20, 2021 – reported opinion
majority https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-25-2021oajc%20-%20104928653149485274.pdf?cb=1
Concurring https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-25-2021oajc%20-%20104928653149485274.pdf?cb=1
Dissent https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-25-2021do%20-%20104928653149485169.pdf?cb=1
Dissent https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-25-2021do1%20-%20104928653149485261.pdf?cb=1
Opinion announcing judgment of the court
In this appeal by allowance, we consider whether the Superior Court erred in affirming an order of the trial court that permitted the appellees to file an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of statute of limitations, which a different trial court judge previously ruled was waived. As we conclude that the second trial judge’s order violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule in this regard, we hold that the Superior Court erred in affirming his order, and, accordingly, we reverse the Superior Court’s decision, vacate in part the trial judge’s order, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Under the coordinate jurisdiction rule, “[j]udges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each others’ decisions.” Ryan, 813 A.2d at 795 (quoting Starr, 664 A.2d at 1331). Beyond promoting the goal of judicial economy, the coordinate jurisdiction rule serves “(1) to protect the settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure [sic] uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end.” Id. (quoting Starr, 664 A.2d at 1331).
[D]eparture from the coordinate jurisdiction rule “is allowed only in exceptional circumstances such as where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed.” Id. (quoting Starr, 664 A.2d at 1332).
