Discover Bank v. Stucka, 33 A.3d 82

Discover Bank filed a complaint against David P. Stucka and Barbara Stucka to collect on a Discover card balance of $16,480.77.
Bank alleged default for failing to make monthly payments and that the entire balance was due with interest and attorneys’ fees, attaching an account summary.
Stuckas filed Preliminary Objections claiming lack of proof of use, lack of contract identification, and absence of an original agreement; trial court did not rule on them.
Bank amended its complaint alleging the Cardmember Agreement governed the account, attaching the Agreement and multiple monthly statements.
Stuckas objected to the Amended Complaint, arguing the attached Agreement was boilerplate and not the original; Bank later filed a Second Amended Complaint adding two new counts.
Trial court ordered production of a signed underlying contract; warning that failure could lead to dismissal with prejudice; Bank was later denied leave to amend and the complaint was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 1019(i) requires attached signed writings to plead a card agreement.	Stucka argues no signed document required; boilerplate is insufficient.	Stucka asserts attachment of unsigned boilerplate is inadequate under Rule 1019(i).	Amendments sufficiently alleged contract; no requirement for signed writing.
Whether a contract to repay credit card charges may be formed without a signed, written agreement.	Bank contends conduct and course of dealing evidence an implied contract.	Stucka contends absence of a signed writing precludes contract formation.	No formal signing required; pleadings supported by allegations and attached documents.
Whether the Bank should have been permitted to amend to add alternative bases for recovery.	Rule 1033 liberal amendment policy supports amendment to add implied contract and unjust enrichment claims.	Amendment would surprise or prejudice; but trial court’s discretion limits apply.	Amendment abused no discretion; Second Amended Complaint adequate.
Whether the Second Amended Complaint’s factual averments and exhibits were sufficiently specific.	Allegations and attached statements provided notice of claims.	Arguments that contract not produced undermined sufficiency.	Allegations and exhibits were sufficient to notify and permit recovery; no pleading defect.

Weiss v. Equibank, 460 A.2d 271 (Pa. Super. 1983) (pleading must apprise defendant of claim and allow preparation)
McShea v. City of Philadelphia, 995 A.2d 334 (Pa. 2010) (breach of contract components: contract, breach, damages)
Atlantic Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. 2003) ( Rule 1019(i) pleading requires production of contract/statement)
Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 580 A.2d 395 (Pa. Super. 1990) (liberal amendment policy; prejudice inquiry limited)
Rissi v. Cappella, 918 A.2d 131 (Pa. Super. 2007) (definition and elements of implied contract)
Tyco Electronics Corp. v. Davis, 895 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 2006) (implied contract concepts; course of conduct evidence)
Sevast v. Kakouras, 915 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 2007) (unjust enrichment elements)
Stoeckinger v. Presidential Fin. Corp. of Delaware Valley, 948 A.2d 828 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unjust enrichment/quasi-contract framework)
Hess v. Fox Rothschild, LLP, 925 A.2d 798 (Pa. Super. 2007) (preliminary objections must show potential for recovery; deference to allegations)