Filed: May 06, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 1996 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-6-1996 Cinea v. Certo Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 95-3168 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996 Recommended Citation "Cinea v. Certo" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 169. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/169 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals fo
Summary: Opinions of the United 1996 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-6-1996 Cinea v. Certo Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 95-3168 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996 Recommended Citation "Cinea v. Certo" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 169. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/169 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for..
More
Opinions of the United
1996 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-6-1996
Cinea v. Certo
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 95-3168
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996
Recommended Citation
"Cinea v. Certo" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 169.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/169
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
----------
No. 95-3168
----------
Barbara Cinea; Sandra Bernardi; Ken Bernardi;
Judith Wimbs, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; Betty Bendel
v.
Pennsylvania State Constable Daniel Certo;
Pennsylvania State Constable Fred Taiber;
Bernard Regan, Manager of Constable Services
for Allegheny County, individually and in their
official capacities; Robert A. Cox;
Nancy Sobolovitch; Patrick Siegworth
Barbara Cinea, Sandra and Ken
Bernardi and Judith Wimbs, on
their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly
situated,
Appellants
----------
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 92-966)
----------
Argued: December 7, 1995
BEFORE: STAPLETON, SAROKIN
and ROSENN, Circuit Judges
----------
(Opinion filed May 6, l996)
Janice Haagensen (ARGUED)
Evalynn Welling, Esq.
Neighborhood Legal Services Ass'n
928 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3799
1
Attorneys for Appellants
Howard M. Holmes, Esq. (ARGUED)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Administrative Office of
Pennsylvania Courts
1515 Market Street
Suite 1414
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorney for Appellee,
Nancy Sobolevitch
----------
OPINION OF THE COURT
----------
SAROKIN, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs, a class of Allegheny County judgment debtors,
filed suit against Pennsylvania constables and the Court
Administrator of Pennsylvania, alleging that plaintiffs were
deprived of their property without due process of law by
operation of Pennsylvania's rules governing the post-judgment
levy and execution against property in proceedings before
district justices. Following a bench trial, the district court
entered judgment for the defendants, and plaintiffs appealed. For
the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
I.
Prior to the commencement of this action, each of the named
plaintiffs was embroiled in a separate landlord-tenant proceeding
before a district justice in Allegheny County. As a result of
these proceedings, they were evicted from their homes, had money
judgments entered against them, and had their personal property
2
levied upon in satisfaction of that judgment. Their individual
stories are as follows.
A. Barbara Cinea
Barbara Cinea, a welfare recipient who lived with her eight-
year-old son in Pittsburgh, fell behind on her rent payments when
her welfare benefits were temporarily suspended. In a proceeding
before a district justice, Cinea's landlord, Robert Cox, obtained
a judgment against her for rent due and for possession of the
property she occupied.
On March 3, 1992, in accordance with that judgment, Cinea
was served with an eviction notice. Although the eviction was
not to take effect until March 5, Cinea and her son fled
hurriedly on March 4 in response to threats by the landlord,
leaving behind all of their belongings. The following day, a
constable posted a notice on the door stating that the locks had
been changed and instructing Cinea to make arrangements with her
landlord within thirty days of the date of the notice in order to
retrieve her possessions.
On March 16, 1992, before the thirty-day period had expired,
Constable Daniel Certo, a defendant in this action, entered the
house and levied on Cinea's property pursuant to a writ of
execution issued by a district justice. The levy, which was
intended to satisfy the money judgment in the landlord-tenant
action, covered "ANY AND ALL PROPERTY BELONGING TO DEFENDANT AT
ADDRESS." Although Constable Certo could have taken the levied
property into his physical possession, he left it, as is
customary, in Cinea's former residence subject to the terms of
3
the levy. He then served Cinea at her mother's house with notice
of the levy and execution. The Notice of Levy stated: "YOU WILL
THEREFORE NOT REMOVE THIS PROPERTY FROM THE PREMISES WITHOUT AN
ORDER FROM ME."
Because certain pieces of the furniture that was levied upon
belonged to Cinea's mother, her mother filed a property claim to
recover them. Following a hearing, a district justice ordered
the release of Cinea's mother's property on March 19. Pursuant
to Pennsylvania rules for levy and execution proceedings, the
landlord filed a timely objection in the state court of common
pleas. Meanwhile, for reasons that are unclear from the record,
Cinea's mother did not receive her property. The court scheduled
the hearing on the landlord's appeal for September 15, 1992--
nearly six months after the district justice's order in Cinea's
mother's favor.
Cinea herself also filed an objection to the levy, arguing
that the value of the property seized far exceeded the amount of
the underlying money judgment ($795) and that the levy was
improper in that it included personal, unsalable items. What
happened next is not clear from the record. It appears, however,
that Cinea prevailed at least in part, and that the district
justice ordered the release of much of the property that had been
subject to the levy. Letter Order of District Justice Connery
(March 30, 1992).0 Ultimately, after filing the instant action,
0
Cinea testified before the district court that the district
justice "didn't do anything" with respect to Cinea's objection,
and that Cinea appealed. Tr. 126. Cinea argues on appeal,
however, that the district justice ruled in her favor.
4
Cinea settled with her landlord and recovered all of her
property. The landlord released Cinea's mother's property upon
settlement as well.
B. Sandra and Ken Bernardi
Sandra and Ken Bernardi were evicted from their apartment in
January of 1992. Before they had actually moved out, Constable
Fred Taiber, a defendant in this action, levied upon certain of
their property in satisfaction of a $606 money judgment entered
against them in the eviction action. The Notice of Levy, like
the one given to Cinea, ordered the Bernardis not to remove any
levied property from the premises without permission of the
constable. Constable Taiber told the Bernardis that they would
be imprisoned if they violated this order.
Although the Bernardis' daughter succeeded in recovering
property belonging to her that had been levied upon in
satisfaction of her parents' debt, the Bernardis themselves filed
no objection to the levy. They moved out pursuant to their
eviction, leaving the levied property behind. The property was
subsequently sold by the constable.
C. Judith Wimbs
Appellants' Brief, p.8. The district court's Findings of Fact
does not clarify this point, because it states merely that the
district justice held a hearing on Cinea's claim and one on her
mother's claim, and subsequently ordered the release of "some of
the property." App. 36. Our review of the district justice's
property release order was similarly unavailing; that document
simply releases "all" property except certain enumerated items,
without indicating whether the property released belonged to
Cinea or to her mother.
5
On November 21, 1991, a district justice entered an order of
eviction and a $1,107 money judgment against Judith Wimbs. She
subsequently moved to a new address, where Constable Certo levied
upon enumerated items of her personal property in satisfaction of
the money judgment, and "any and all personal property of the
defendant at the address." Like the other plaintiffs in this
action, Wimbs was served with a Notice of Levy that forbade her
from removing any levied property without an order from the
constable; however, unlike the Bernardis and Cinea, she retained
possession of the property up until the time of sale.
Wimbs neither objected to the levy nor attempted to contact
her landlord regarding satisfaction of the judgment.
Consequently, the levied property was sold to the landlord.0
II.
Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and all
persons living in Allegheny County whose property has been or
will be subject to levy and execution before the district
justices of Allegheny County, alleging that the levy and
execution procedures set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure Governing Actions and Proceedings Before District
Justices (hereinafter "District Justice Rules") are
unconstitutional.0 The bases of their claims are that the levy
procedures deprive judgment debtors of the use of their property
0
The final plaintiff in this matter, Betty Bendel, did not join
in the appeal and thus is not discussed in this opinion.
0
Plaintiffs also asserted state-law claims for wrongful
conversion and abuse of process against the constables, but they
do not challenge the district court's disposition of these claims
on appeal.
6
prior to sale in violation of the due process clauses of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and work an unlawful seizure in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs prayed for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensatory and
punitive damages.
Plaintiffs initially named six individual defendants:
Pennsylvania State Constables Daniel Certo, Fred Taiber, and
Patrick Siegworth; Bernard Regan, Manager of Constable Services
of Allegheny County; Robert Cox, plaintiff Cinea's former
landlord; and Nancy Sobolovitch, Court Administrator of
Pennsylvania. Upon plaintiffs' motion, however, defendants Cox
and Siegworth were dismissed from the case prior to trial.
The case was tried without a jury on February 21 and 22,
1995. The district court entered a directed verdict in favor of
defendant Regan, from which order plaintiffs do not appeal. On
February 24, the district court entered judgment in favor of all
remaining defendants.
On appeal, plaintiffs challenge only the district court's
rulings on the constitutional claims.0 They raise the following
three issues for our review: (1) whether judgment debtors whose
property is held outside their possession pending appeal of a
district justice's ruling are afforded a constitutionally
adequate post-deprivation remedy; (2) whether the deprivations of
0
Defendants Certo and Taiber did not enter appearances with
respect to this appeal, apparently having settled. Thus, the
State Court Administrator, who is generally responsible for "the
prompt and proper disposition of the business of all courts and
justices of the peace," Penn. Const. art. IV, § 10(a), remains
the sole appellee.
7
property that the plaintiffs suffered during the levy appeals
process resulted from the levies or from their evictions; and (3)
whether the levies at issue violated the Fourth Amendment
protection against unlawful seizures insofar as the official levy
form lent apparent authority to the landlords' unlawful retention
of the property of their evicted tenants. Because we believe the
second issue is a subpart of the first, we will address issues
(1) and (2) together.
III.
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1343. As this is an appeal from a final order of a district
court, we have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1291.
IV.
We review the district court's findings of fact under a
clearly erroneous standard and its findings of law de novo.
Epstein Family Partnership v. Kmart Corp., 13 F.3d 762, 765-66
(3d Cir. 1994).
V.
We turn first to the question of whether plaintiffs were
afforded a post-deprivation remedy adequate to satisfy the due
process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
"The fundamental requirement of due process is the
opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner.'" Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)(citation
omitted). However, "'"[d]ue process," unlike some legal rules, is
not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to
8
time, place and circumstances.'" Id. (citation omitted). On the
contrary, it is "'flexible and calls for such procedural
protections as the particular situation demands.'"
Id. (citation
omitted). Under the circumstances presented here, we must
determine whether the procedures set forth in the District
Justice Rules "represent[] a fair accommodation of the respective
interests of creditor and debtor." Finberg v. Sullivan,
634 F.2d
50, 58 (3d Cir. 1980).
It is axiomatic that the degree of procedural protection
required by the Due Process Clause is proportional to the extent
of the deprivation. In this case, the extent of the deprivation
is in dispute. Plaintiffs argue that they were deprived of their
property during the period between levy and execution by the
Notice of Levy and the actions of the constables who served those
notices, because the Notice and actions indicated to plaintiffs
that removal of their property from the site of levying would
expose them to the risk of criminal sanctions. Defendants
counter that the levies deprived plaintiffs only of the right to
alienate their property, and that it was the evictions rather
than the levies that deprived plaintiffs of the possession and
use of their property.
It may well be the case that plaintiffs, through some
combination of the Notice of Levy forms and the statements of the
constables, were under the impression that they could not remove
their property from the quarters from which they had been
evicted. However, neither the text of the forms nor the
underlying law supports that assumption.
9
The Notice of Levy forms served on plaintiffs warned them
that they would face criminal penalties if they moved their
levied property without the permission of the levying constable.
The forms did not absolutely forbid plaintiffs to remove the
property from their landlords' premises, and no plaintiff makes
such an allegation. Nor is there any evidence that any plaintiff
sought the constable's permission to move her levied possessions
and was refused.0 Judith Wimbs, the Bernardis, and Betty Bendel
apparently did not make any attempt to move their property. Cinea
testified that she asked Constable Certo to release her property
to her at one point, but that he told her that her former
landlord was the one with control over her possessions and that
she would have to take it up with him. Cinea does not dispute
the truth of this assertion, nor could she do so; her former
landlord had changed the locks on the building, and the constable
had neither the authority to enter without the landlord's
permission nor a means of entering without the landlord's key.
Moreover, under Pennsylvania law, a judgment debtor is
subject to criminal sanctions only if she
destroys, removes, conceals, encumbers, transfers or
otherwise deals with property subject to a security
interest or after levy has been made thereon with
intent to hinder enforcement of such interest.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4110 (emphasis added). A judgment debtor who
retains possession of levied property may move her property post-
0
We question the relevance of evidence of the constables'
behavior to the issue of whether the forms and procedures violate
the due process clause, and our discussion of such evidence by no
means reflects a determination that it is relevant.
10
levy as long as she does not do so with intent to conceal her
movements or defeat execution and informs the constable of her
new location. Commonwealth v. Fisher, 14 Pa. D. & C. 603 (1930).
Plaintiffs argue that the fact that it may take three to
four months for the court of common pleas to hear an appeal from
a district justice's decision regarding the propriety of a levy
constitutes a violation of due process. We disagree. First,
while a constable theoretically has the legal right to take
control and possession of levied property, the constable in each
of these cases left the levied property on the premises. Thus,
if not for the eviction, each plaintiff would have retained the
use and possession of her property pending appeal from the levy.
Although a levy still works a deprivation of property even if the
judgment debtor retains possession, Montgomery v. Green, 1989 WL
121868, *4 (E.D. Pa. 1989)(not reported in F.Supp.), the fact
that the judgment debtors retain possession and use of their
property renders the deprivation slight and reduces the amount of
process due.
Of course, a constable has the right to remove the levied
property from the possession of the judgment debtor at the time
of the imposition of the levy. As none of the named plaintiffs
suffered this type of deprivation, however, they do not have
standing to challenge the rules on this ground. Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)(holding that
to meet the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing, a
plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that she has personally
11
suffered an "'injury in fact'" that will be redressed by a
favorable decision).
Under the circumstances of this case, there is no question
that the procedures provided satisfy the requirement of the due
process clause. The existing rules provide fairly extensive
post-levy procedural protections for judgment debtors. The
levying constable must serve on the judgment debtor a notice
which explains the nature of the levy and informs the debtor of
her rights and liabilities. R.409. This notice informs the
debtor that certain types of property are exempt from levy0 and
that she is entitled to a $300 exemption, and explains the
procedures for claiming the exemption, appealing from the levy,
and obtaining free legal assistance if necessary. Id. If the
debtor fails to claim the monetary exemption, the executing
officer must set aside sufficient property to constitute a $300
exemption in kind or, if in-kind division is not possible, $300
in proceeds from the sale. R.408.
The executing officer must give notice of the sale by
mailing handbills to the judgment debtor and to the plaintiff at
0
The notice states as follows:
Your real estate cannot be taken on this execution, nor
can perishable personal property or personal property
which is intangible such as your bank accounts. There
are some other types of property which are exempt from
execution under State and Federal law, such as wearing
apparel, bibles, school books, sewing machines,
military uniforms and equipment, most wages and
unemployment compensation, social security benefits,
certain retirement funds and accounts, certain veteran
and armed forces benefits, certain insurance proceeds
and such other exemptions as may be provided by law.
R.409(2).
12
their last known addresses. In addition, the executing officer
must post handbills in the office of the district justice who
issued the order of execution, at the place of levy, and at the
place of sale, at least six days prior to the sale. R.412.
The District Justice Rules provide for two ways of
challenging the levy prior to sale of the goods. First, the
judgment debtor can file an objection in the office of the
district justice on the ground that the levy is "illegal or
excessive compared to the amount of the judgment, interest, and
probable costs." R.413(1). Second, a third party with an
interest in all or part of the property levied can file a claim.
R.413(2). The filing of such an objection stays the sale of the
property pending a hearing pursuant to Rule 420. R.413.
A district justice must hold a hearing on such an objection
not later than five days after it is filed, after notifying all
parties "by telephone or other timely means of communication."
R.421. The justice must then rule on the objection not later
than three days after the hearing. Id. In making such ruling,
the district justice may, among other things,
(1) Reappraise or redesignate property appraised or
designated by the executing officer, or order inclusion
in the levy of property set aside by that officer;
(2) Stay or order the abandonment of the levy in whole
or in part, or release property from the levy;
(3) Stay or prohibit a sale of all or part of the
property levied upon;
R.420(B). Any stay of the execution proceedings ordered by the
district justice is effective immediately. R.421(D). Other
13
orders do not take effect for ten days, so as to allow an
aggrieved party in interest to appeal. Id.
To appeal from a Rule 420 ruling of a district justice, the
aggrieved party must file a statement of objection with the
district justice within ten days of the order or determination.
R.1016. Unless and until the court of common pleas orders
otherwise, the filing of an objection operates as a stay on any
execution proceedings. R.1020. The court of common pleas
reviews the district justice's determination de novo. R.1019B.
In reviewing these procedural protections, the question we
must ask is whether they "represent[] a fair accommodation of the
respective interests of creditor and debtor." Finberg v.
Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50, 58 (3d Cir. 1980). We easily conclude
that they do, especially in light of the fact that the plaintiffs
already had an opportunity to be heard at the original landlord-
tenant proceeding and thus clearly had notice of the money
judgment against them. The rules outlined above provide ample
notice of the levy and execution proceedings, explain the
judgment debtor's rights and liabilities, set forth the
procedures for filing objections and provide for prompt hearings
on those objections. They protect the interest of the judgment
creditor by keeping the levy in place during the appeals process,
thus preventing the judgment debtor from selling or secreting the
property; and they protect the interests of the judgment debtor
by providing a forum for a hearing and staying execution of the
levy until its validity has been determined. That the appeals
process may be delayed at the court of common pleas level is
14
attributable to the operations of that court, not the procedural
rules at the district justice level, and in any event, does not
rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiffs'
challenge is to the District Justice Rules governing levy and
execution proceedings. What happens at the court of common pleas
is beyond the province of those rules.
Plaintiffs argue that the automatic stay provision of Rule
1020, which prevents all district justice orders affecting
"execution proceedings" from taking effect once an appeal has
been filed, infringes the due process rights of judgment debtors
insofar as it prevents enforcement of orders releasing their
property from levy during the weeks or months appeal is pending
before the court of common pleas. Had the levying constables in
this case taken actual physical possession of the judgment
debtors' property, rather than leaving it in the place of levy,
this argument might have some merit. Under those circumstances,
the automatic stay provision of Rule 1020 might infringe upon the
due process rights of judgment debtors because it would
completely deprive them of all use and possession of their
property pending appeal, despite a district justice order in
their favor. However, that issue is not before us, and we do not
decide it here. We conclude simply that where, as here, (1) the
levying constable does not take physical possession of the
property of a judgment debtor but rather leaves it (theoretically
at least) in the possession of the judgment debtor, (2) a
district justice issues an order releasing the judgment debtor's
property from levy, and (3) that order is stayed pursuant to Rule
15
1020 pending appeal, the fact that several weeks or months may
elapse before the court of common pleas finally determines the
validity of the order on appeal does not render the automatic
stay provision of the District Justice Rules violative of due
process.
VI.
Plaintiff's second argument on appeal is that the levies at
issue violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful
seizures insofar as the official levy form lent apparent
authority to the landlords' unlawful retention of the property of
their evicted tenants. Here again, we disagree. While the
Fourth Amendment protects property rights outside the criminal
search and seizure context, Soldal v. Cook County, Illinois, 113
S. Ct. 538, 543 (1992), a seizure of property only violates the
Fourth Amendment if it is unreasonable.
Id. at 549
("'reasonableness is still the ultimate standard' under the
Fourth Amendment")(citation omitted).
In this case, the constables had authority to levy on
plaintiffs' property in the form of an order of execution from a
district justice. As the Supreme Court noted in Soldal, making a
showing of unreasonableness when the officer in question was
acting pursuant to a court order "would be a laborious task
indeed." Id. Moreover, that the levies coincided with
plaintiffs' evictions does not transform the levies into
unreasonable seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. While
we recognize the hardship that plaintiffs suffered as a result of
the combination of levy and eviction, we cannot conclude that
16
either the constables or the rules under which they acted violate
the Constitution.
VII.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of
the district court.
17
CINEA v. CERTO, No. 95-3168
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge, Concurring:
As the court observes, this case does not present a
substantial constitutional issue. My reasons for so concluding
are somewhat different, however, than those assigned in the
court's opinion.
A levy is a seizure under color of state law. See,
e.g., 15 Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, Execution §§ 61, 62
(1959). Such a seizure constitutes deprivation of a property
interest for due process purposes whether or not the judgment
debtor may ask the permission of the seizing officer to move the
property and whether or not the seizing officer may choose to
allow the judgment debtor to continue to exercise some of the
attributes of ownership. See Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50,
59-60 (3d Cir. 1980). As the court's opinion demonstrates,
however, appropriate process in the factual context of this case
was afforded under the District Justice Rules. The levy was a
court authorized seizure based on a duly entered final judgment
and an opportunity was afforded to secure relief from an
erroneous or excessive seizure within a maximum of eight days.
This process exceeds the minimum process due under the
Constitution as interpreted in Finberg.
18
None of the appellants here is in a position to advance
the only arguable constitutional issue presented by the District
Justice Rules. If Rule 10200 were interpreted as automatically
precluding a judgment debtor with a meritorious claim for relief
from an erroneous or excessive seizure from securing that relief
prior to a final merits decision in the Court of Common Pleas, a
judgment debtor adversely affected by the application of the Rule
as so interpreted would be able to raise a substantial
constitutional issue.0 The stay provided by Rule 1020, however,
is triggered only by the filing of "a statement of objection" -
i.e., an appeal -- with the Court of Common Pleas. Thus, this
substantial issue would be presented for decision only if an
appellant had been successful on her objection before the
district justice but the release of her property had been stayed
0
Rule 1020 provides:
Until further order of the court of
common pleas, receipt by the district justice
of the statement of objection shall operate
as a stay of any execution proceedings that
may be affected by the proceedings on the
statement.
0
It is not necessary to construe Rule 1020 in this manner. Rule
1020 provides for "a stay of any execution proceedings that may
be affected by the" appeal. At the time the Rule comes into
play, the levy has been completed and, of what remains to be
done, the execution sale proceedings would seem to be the most
likely intended object of the stay. As so construed, Rule 1020
would serve only to protect a judgment debtor's property from
sale when he or she has appealed from a decision of the district
justice in favor of the creditor. Given that this is the most
natural reading and that a contrary one would raise substantial
issues under the United States Constitution, I believe the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would be more likely to adopt this
interpretation.
2
under Rule 1020 when the landlord appealed to that court. No one
other than Barbara Cinea in this case filed an objection with a
District Justice. Cinea filed an objection and secured an order
releasing some of her property. The district court's findings of
fact, however, indicate that the landlord appealed only her
mother's judgment and the record evidences no appeal from the
order releasing a portion of her own personal property. Because
no one involved in this case was adversely affected by Rule 1020,
the court properly expresses no opinion on its interpretation or
constitutionality.
3
