Deek Investment, L.P. v. Murray, F.
157 A.3d 491
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- DEEK acquired a money judgment against Francis and Patricia Murray entered on September 26, 1991 (originally from CoreStates Bank) and later became holder of the judgment.
- The parties entered a 2002 Forbearance Agreement with a payment schedule; the Murrays missed/deferred several payments and DEEK declared default in February 2004.
- The trial court enforced the settlement in an April 22, 2005 order permitting the Murrays to pay remaining sums and stating DEEK could execute on the existing judgment if they failed to pay.
- DEEK filed a writ of revival in April 2009 and later filed a praecipe for a writ of execution against personal property on February 13, 2012; sheriff’s sale notice was served March 12, 2013.
- The Murrays moved to set aside the 2012 writ arguing it was time-barred by the 20-year statute for execution against personal property (42 Pa.C.S. § 5529(a)). The trial court denied relief on February 22, 2016; the Murrays appealed pro se.
- The Superior Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded, holding the 2012 writ was issued after the 20-year limitations period expired (Sept. 26, 2011) and that the trial court erred in tolling or restarting the limitations period from the 2005 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murrays) | Defendant's Argument (DEEK) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Francis preserved issues on appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) | Both appellants appealed; 1925(b) filed on behalf of both — issues preserved | Trial court: Francis waived because he didn’t sign a separate 1925(b) | Court held Francis’s issues were preserved; 1925(b) statement on behalf of both sufficed |
| Whether the 2012 writ of execution violated the 20-year limit in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529(a) | Writ issued Feb. 13, 2012, after 20-year limit expired Sept. 26, 2011 — writ time-barred | DEEK/trial court: limitations triggered or tolled by events in 2005; §5529 inapplicable or tolled | Court held §5529 applies from 1991 judgment date; 2012 writ was time-barred |
| Whether the trial court properly applied equitable tolling/estoppel to exclude periods from the 20-year clock | N/A (Murrays argued statute expired) | DEEK: Murrays’ actions and appeals prevented execution, justifying tolling/restart | Court held trial court gave no legal basis; docket shows inactivity 2009–2012; DEEK failed to prove equitable tolling |
| Whether the 2005 enforcement order restarted or triggered the limitations period | N/A (Murrays opposed treating 2005 as new trigger) | Trial court/DEEK: April 22, 2005 order started new limitations period | Court found no authority to treat 2005 order as restart; limitations run from 1991 judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Shearer v. Naftzinger, 747 A.2d 859 (Pa. 2000) (discusses § 5529’s 20-year outer limit on executing against personal property and distinguishes execution from writ of revival)
- McClean v. Djerassi, 84 A.3d 1067 (Pa. Super. 2013) (equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment requires affirmative act proven by clear, precise, and convincing evidence)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Commonwealth, 885 A.2d 117 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (discussion of equitable tolling doctrine)
- Vega-Reyes, 131 A.3d 61 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for statute-of-limitations questions is de novo)