Are Settlement Proceeds From a Survival Action Income For Purposes of Determining Child Support Obligations?

In the case of Birkmire v. Zeppieri, No. 802 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 1, 2026 Bender, P.J.E., Lane, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the issue of survival action settlement proceeds and child support obligations.

According to the Opinion, a mother’s child was tragically killed while walking to a school bus stop.

The mother filed a wrongful death and survival action. The case was eventually settled.

The Plaintiff put 100% of the amount of the settlement as survival damages to the child’s estate.

A family court later determined that the settlement proceeds were income to the mother for purposes of determining the mother’s child support obligation for another child.

In this decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Pennsylvania Superior Court panel concluded that the settlement proceeds were not income for purposes of determining the mother’s child support obligations.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Pa. Super. Blog written by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.

Source of image:  Photo by Sasun Bughdarya on www.unsplash.com

Save the Date - November 12, 2026 - Lackawanna Pro Bono Gala

 

It's Gotta Be The Lawsuit: Motion To Compel Arbitration Filed by Defendant Denied After Defendant Participated Extensively in Litigation Process

In the case of Mansur v. Wendy’s, No. 240302951 (C.P. Phila. Co. July 28, 2026 Cohen, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion outlining the reasons why its Order denying the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration should be affirmed by the Superior Court.

According to the Opinion, this wrongful death and survival action arose out of the fatal assault of the Plaintiff while working at a Wendy’s Restaurant. The assailant was a former co-employee.

After the Plaintiff’s estate filed suit, the Defendants participated extensively in the pleadings and in discovery efforts. Thereafter, sixteen (16) months into the litigation, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

After reviewing the record before it, the trial court denied the Motion, holding that the Defendant had waived its right to Arbitration by actively participating in the litigation proceedings. In this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court was requesting the Superior Court to affirm that decision.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert, www.Law.com (Oct. 8, 2026).

Still Time To Register For CLE

 

On November 5, 2026, Daniel E. Cummins, Esq. of Cummins Law and Neil T. O'Donnell of O'Donnell Law will be presenting a CLE program entitled "2026 Civil Litigation Update With Practice Tips" at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference set to take place at the Hilton Scranton Hotel and Conference Center.

Attendance at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference is open to members of the Lackawanna Bar Association Conference and will be held in person.

Please consider registering to attend the upcoming November 5, 2026 Lackawanna County by utilizing this LINK.

Please also note that a version of this presentation may also be offered on Zoom through another sponsor in the near future. Details to follow.

Court Finds That Arbitration Clause Found on App Inconspicuous and, Therefore, Unenforceable

In the case of Oakley v. FloatMe Corp., No. 1318 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 1, 2026 King, J., Lane, J., and Panella, P.J.E.) (Op. by King, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a Defendant’s efforts to compel arbitration of this civil litigation matter.

According to the Opinion, FloatMe is a Texas-based technology company that makes loans or cash advances to Pennsylvania consumers over the internet.

This matter arose out of a Class Action matter. After suit was filed, the Defendant filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

FloatMe asserted that the Plaintiffs were required to sign up via FloatMe’s App before she could obtain a cash advance. FloatMe asserted that the App prompts the user to answer several questions and request certain information. One of the prompts on the App provides that , by continuing with the application process, the applicant agrees to FloatMe’s terms of service and privacy policy.

FloatMe further maintained that the terms of service button is clickable and directs the user to an online format of the terms and condition. The company further asserted that, if a user clicks the phrase terms and conditions, those terms and conditions allegedly clearly indicate that the agreement contains an Arbitration provision and a Class Action waiver.

The Plaintiff asserted that the App’s lengthy sign up process included “at least 16 screens” for a consumer to navigate before they may obtain a case advance. The Plaintiff noted that, at no point in that process did FloatMe mention Arbitration or the waiver of any constitutional rights, such as the right to a jury trial.

The Plaintiffs asserted that this type of a sign up process is not sufficient to bind users to Arbitration or the waiver of any constitutional rights such as the right to a jury trial. 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed and held that the FloatMe App did not conspicuously inform the Plaintiff of her rights.  Rather, the court found that the application process on the App allowed users to complete their registration without being fully informed of the rights that the applicant is waiving.

As such, the Superior Court held that there was no mutual assent and no valid agreement entered into with respect to Arbitration.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: The Pa. Super. Blog written by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.

Source of image:  Photo by Brett Jordan on www.unsplash.com.

Still Time To Register and Sponsor

 

Court Addresses AI Hallucinations in Filings By Pro Se Litigant

In the case of Coyne v. Smurl, No. 2025-CV-5844 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 25, 2026 Nealon, J.), the court issued a decision addressing Preliminary Objections filed in a matter involving the Sunshine Act.

Of note, on pgs. 8-10, and in footnote 4 of the Opinion, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas points out that the pro se litigant in this case appeared to have relied upon generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) in creating its filings given that a number of the citations offered up to the court by the pro se litigant were not accurate.

The court noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1023.1(c)(2), as well as the local rules of court in Lackawanna County, the signature of an attorney or a self-representative party on a court filing constitutes a certification by that attorney or party that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions set forth in the filing “are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law.”

As such, the court noted that attorneys and pro se litigants have a duty to independently verify the accuracy of all citations generated by AI and the legitimacy of the holdings and the rationales that AI attributes to those identified cases before submitting any filings of record.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image: Photo by Igor Omilaev on www.unsplash.com.