Customers Bank v. Reitnour, P.
397 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Sep 25, 2017Background
- Customers Bank obtained three judgments by confession (411, 011, 427 Loans) and sought execution after Appellants defaulted on multiple loans and breached a December 2014 Settlement Agreement.
- The Settlement Agreement required Appellants to pay the consolidated indebtedness by March 31, 2015 and caused the Bank to "standstill" on collection efforts; Appellants made various payments but failed to satisfy the full amount.
- A New Jersey foreclosure judgment on the 411 Loan was entered against Reitnour Investment Properties; Appellants later paid more than the NJ court determined was due, and the NJ court ruled the foreclosure judgment satisfied as of that payment.
- The Chester County trial court struck three of four praecipes for writs of execution (procedural defects under Pa.R.C.P. 2957(b)) and otherwise set aside or stayed execution pending the Bank refiling compliant praecipes on December 23, 2016.
- Appellants appealed multiple questions (e.g., whether the Bank may execute after settlement, whether NJ ruling satisfies the confessed judgment, whether payments were applied properly, procedural and statutory challenges to an Act 6 writ), but the Superior Court first addressed appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bank) | Defendant's Argument (Appellants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the December 23, 2016 orders final and appealable? | Orders enforceable; Bank must only refile praecipes (ministerial) so orders are final. | Orders are final because practical effect is to end Bank's rights; Appellants argue immediate appeal permitted. | Quashed appeal: orders were interlocutory because they temporarily maintained the status quo until compliant praecipes were refiled. |
| May Bank execute confessed judgments after the Settlement Agreement? | Settlement was breached; Bank freed from "standstill" and may execute. | Settlement barred execution; Bank bound by settlement terms. | Not reached on merits because appeal quashed as interlocutory. |
| Does the NJ foreclosure court's satisfaction ruling operate to mark the 411 confessed judgment satisfied? | Bank contends confessed judgment separate; payments and application disputes remain. | Appellants claim NJ court determination preclusive and satisfies confessed judgment. | Not reached on merits due to interlocutory disposition. |
| Were the praecipes/writs (including Act 6 writ) defective and/or barred under statute (41 P.S. § 407)? | Bank argued defects were curable by refiling and execution could proceed if praecipes corrected. | Appellants argued procedural defects (missing "Confessed Judgment" language) and statutory violations invalidate writs. | Not decided on merits; trial court deemed praecipe defects warrant striking and required refiling, making orders interlocutory and appeal nonfinal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 417 Pa. 7, 208 A.2d 470 (discusses when a stay of execution is interlocutory vs final)
- In re Opening of Parkway, 267 Pa. 219, 110 A. 144 (historical rule treating determinative orders relating to execution as judgments)
- Jenkintown Nat’l Bank v. T.L. Fulmor, 124 Pa. 337, 17 A. 2d 1 (stay of execution held interlocutory when issued to allow further investigation)
- National Council of Junior Order of United American Mechanics v. Roberson, 214 Pa.Super. 9, 248 A.2d 861 (stay becomes final if granted indefinitely)
- Rodgers v. Yodock, 309 Pa.Super. 154, 454 A.2d 1129 (order "setting aside" writ unappealable when limited in duration)
- Valley Forge Ctr. Assocs. v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 546 Pa. 1, 693 A.2d 242 (a court must examine the order's language to determine finality and appealability)