Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ROGER VONA v. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DELAWARE COUNTY (09/04/87)

decided: September 4, 1987.

ROGER VONA, APPELLANT
v.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF DELAWARE COUNTY, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in the case of Roger Vona v. Redevelopment Authority of Delaware County, No. 85-1726.

COUNSEL

Gregory G. Stagliano, Eckell, Sparks, Levy, Auerbach & Monte, for appellant.

John T. Salvucci, Fronefield & deFuria, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 157]

Roger Vona appeals a Delaware County Common Pleas Court order granting summary judgment for the Redevelopment Authority of Delaware County (Authority) and dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Vona filed a complaint against the Authority seeking reinstatement to its list of approved contractors. His name had been removed from the list following a dispute over

[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 158]

    his job performance on the home of one of his customers. We affirm the trial court.

Vona and Karen Leggett executed a home renovation contract which was embodied in a form provided by the Authority. The Authority held the money in escrow pending satisfactory completion of the job.*fn1 Pursuant to Leggett's complaints, the Authority conducted an inspection and concluded that Vona had failed to complete the work in a timely and workmanlike manner.*fn2 Thereafter, Vona sought to have the dispute resolved through arbitration as provided in the contract.*fn3 Based

[ 109 Pa. Commw. Page 159]

    on Leggett's failure to cooperate in the arbitration process, she was ordered in contempt and was held to have waived her rights to voice her grievance. The Authority was ordered to release the full contract price.

However, the Authority persisted in refusing to release the funds and further informed Vona that his name was being removed from the "bid list." An agreement was subsequently reached, however, between counsel for both Vona and the Authority, in which Vona would complete certain repairs and modifications on Leggett's home in return for release of the full contract price and reinstatement to the "bid list." Vona did the work in question and was paid the full contract price, but the Authority did not reinstate him to the list.

Our scope of review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment is limited to determining whether there has been an error of law or a manifest abuse of discretion. Miller v. Emelson, 103 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 437, 520 A.2d 913 (1987). Rule 1035 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of summary judgment where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" and "the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035(b). Summary judgment should be granted only in cases where the right is clear and free from doubt. Consumer Party ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.