J-A19008-13

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ROY H. LOMAS, SR., D/B/A ROY LOMAS
CARPET CONTRACTOR,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee
v.
JAMES B. KRAVITZ, ANDORRA SPRINGS
DEVELOPMENT, INC., CHERRYDALE
CONSTRUCTION CO., EASTERN
DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. AND
KRAVMAR, INC.,
Appellants

No. 2391 EDA 2011

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 16, 2011

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 00-5929
BEFORE: BENDER, J., GANTMAN, J., and PANELLA, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, J.

FILED MARCH 06, 2014

James B. Kravitz, Andorra Springs Development, Inc., Cherrydale

Construction Co., Eastern Development Enterprises, Inc. and Kravar, Inc.,
(the Kravitz Entities) appeal from the judgment entered on August 16,
2011, in favor of Roy H. Lomas, Sr., d/b/a/ Roy Lomas Carpet Contractor in
the amount of $1,688,379.10.1 We affirm.

____________________________________________
1

Appellants filed their appeal on August 26, 2011, from the denial of their
post-trial motions on August 4, 2011. An order denying post-trial motions is
interlocutory and generally not appealable. See Levitt v. Patrick, 976 A.2d
581, 584 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that appeal properly lies from the
entry of judgment, not from order denying post-trial motions). However,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

J-A19008-13

The basis for this litigation began in November of 1994, when

Cherrydale and Lomas entered into a contract for Lomas to supply and
install flooring in homes being built by Cherrydale. One month later, Lomas
stopped working due to Cherrydales failure to pay for completed work,
which at that point amounted to $30,913.00.

In January of 1995, Lomas

demanded submission to binding arbitration, which resulted in an interim

award for Lomas. The arbitrators final award was issued in September of
1998 and held that Lomas was due $200,601.61 in accordance with the
Contractor Subcontractor Payment Act (CSPA), 73 P.S. 501 et seq.
Judgment was entered on September 10, 1998.

After unsuccessfully

securing payment on the judgment, Lomas filed the instant action on March
31, 2000, in order to execute on the judgment.
It is now 2013 and the matter is presently before this Court. The time
from January 1995 until the present appeal was filed on September 15,
2011, covers a sixteen year period. This length of time, due significantly to
the Kravitz Entities delaying tactics, is almost incomprehensible, considering
that this case began over a thirty-thousand dollar debt and has now resulted
in a judgment assessing damages for $1,688,379.10.

(Footnote Continued)

_______________________

since judgment was entered on August 16, 2011, we consider the appeal as
taken from the entry of judgment.

-2-

J-A19008-13

When the Kravitz Entities filed their Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of

errors complained of on appeal, they set forth 24 separate claims of error.
The trial court wrote a fifty-page opinion responding to each claim raised by
the Kravitz Entities.

Now, in their brief to this Court, the Kravitz Entities

raise seven issues, which essentially encompass most of the issues raised in
the Rule 1925(b) statement submitted to the trial court. The Kravitz Entities
state these issues as follows:
Whether, as a matter of law, the entire bench of the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas should have been
recused, and/or full, complete, and required discovery permitted,
because of the irreparable appearance of impropriety created by
the ongoing participation and financial interest in the litigation by
a sitting member of that Court?
Whether, as a matter of law, the testimony of Appellee's expert
should have been discredited and/or stricken, because Appellee's
attorneys and a sitting member of the Montgomery County
bench improperly altered, edited, and influenced the content of
the expert's report[?]
Whether, as a matter of law, the corporate veil can be pierced to
find James B. Kravitz individually liable, and all Appellants liable
for fraudulent transfers, based on non-cash accounting
adjustments and bookkeeping entries made by licensed
professional accountants in the ordinary course of business
pursuant to generally accepted accounting practices for the
lawful purpose of minimizing tax liabilities[?]
Whether, as a matter of law, punitive damages may be awarded
where the underlying arbitration award was based on the
Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, which includes a
provision authorizing the award of a statutory punitive penalty[?]
Whether, as a matter of law, punitive damages may be awarded
where Appellants' conduct was motivated by generally accepted
accounting and tax planning principles and was not outrageous,
willful, wanton, or reckless, and where Appellants' conduct in
-3-

J-A19008-13

defending the litigation was within its due process rights and was
not dilatory, obdurate, and/or vexatious?
Whether, as matter of law, a punitive damages award far
exceeding a 1:1 ratio with the compensatory damages award
violates Appellants' rights to due process under the United
States Constitution?
Whether, as a matter of law, the trial court could award Lomas
attorney's fees, interest, and penalties under the Contractor and
Subcontractor Payment Act ("CASPA") when Lomas did not bring
a claim under CASPA, the trial court was precluded from altering
or adjusting the underlying arbitration award which did award
certain damages under CASPA, and the trial court misapplied
CASPA in its award of damages?
Kravitz Entities brief at 2-3.
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and Judge Rogers thorough and well-crafted opinion, dated
January 15, 2013. We conclude that Judge Rogers extensive, well-reasoned
opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by the Kravitz Entities.
Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own and affirm the judgment in
Lomas favor on that basis. 2
Judgment affirmed
Judge Gantman notes her dissent.

____________________________________________

We are compelled to comment on the Honorable Judge Thomas C. Brancas

involvement in this case. Although we conclude that the Honorable Judge
Thomas P. Rogers properly resolved the issues concerning Judge Brancas
actions, we suggest that this type of situation should be avoided in the
future.

-4-

J-A19008-13

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/6/2014

-5-