Green Acres Rehabilitation & Nursing Center v. Sullivan
113 A.3d 1261
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- This appeal challenges a June 13, 2014 order denying Henrietta Sullivan's petition to strike a default judgment entered in favor of Green Acres Nursing Center in a breach of contract case.
- Green Acres sued Henry Sullivan and Henrietta Sullivan (as his agent under a financial power of attorney) in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in 2007 seeking $114,497.13 for nursing services.
- Service of the complaint was attempted at Appellant's residence via an adult relative who refused to identify, after which Appellant did not answer the complaint.
- A ten-day notice of intent to file for default was mailed December 12, 2007; a praecipe for entry of default judgment followed on December 26, 2007, and judgment by default was entered against Appellant for the same amount.
- Appellant waited until April 10, 2014 to file a petition to strike the default judgment, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper capacity, and defective certification, which the trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against Appellant | Green Acres asserts trial division has subject matter jurisdiction over the contract claims and derivative claims against Appellant. | Sullivan contends Orphans’ Court jurisdiction applies to POA matters, so the trial division lacked subject matter jurisdiction. | Trial division had subject matter jurisdiction; not void for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the default judgment was entered against Appellant in her individual capacity, not her POA capacity | Green Acres argues the pleadings and record support liability against Sullivan’s agent via POA-derived claims primarily against Sullivan, not Appellant personally. | Sullivan argues the judgment should be in her representative capacity and that timing/death of the principal undermines this. | Judgment was entered against Appellant in her individual capacity; representation capacity was not required for the default judgment. |
| Whether the certification attached to the praecipe complied with Rule 237.1 and 237.5, and whether any defects were fatal | Green Acres contends the ten-day notice was substantially compliant and properly attached to the praecipe, despite a mislabeling in the certification. | Sullivan claims the certification cited a non-applicable rule and misdescribed the notice, constituting a fatal defect. | No fatal defect; substantial compliance satisfied Rule 237.1 and 237.5, and the ten-day notice was properly provided. |
| Whether Sullivan died before entry of judgment and whether death terminated the POA affecting validity of the default judgment | Green Acres argues the death of Sullivan does not automatically void the judgment against Appellant, given the pleadings and record. | Sullivan asserts the POA terminated on death, potentially extinguishing Appellant's capacity to be sued in representative capacity. | No fatal defect found; the judgment stands, and striking it based on alleged POA termination was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flynn v. Casa Di Bertacchi Corp., 674 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Super. 1996) (defects in judgment may be fatal when authority is lacking)
- Erie Ins. Co. v. Bullard, 839 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 2003) (void ab initio when prothonotary lacks authority)
- Oswald v. WB Public Square Associates, LLC, 80 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2013) (petition to strike judgment is not a merits review; facial defects matter)
- Midwest Financial Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614 (Pa. Super. 2013) (fatal defects on face of record; tradition of striking judgments)
- Gorden v. Cutler, 471 A.2d 449 (Pa. Super. 1983) (unified court has jurisdiction; wrong division not a dismissal but a transfer)
- Womer v. Hilliker, 589 Pa. 256 (Pa. 2006) (doctrine of substantial compliance in procedural rules)
- Mother's Restaurant, Inc. v. Krystkiewicz, 861 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 2004) (three-part test for opening judgments; equity aspects acknowledged)
- Acre v. Navy Brand Mfg. Co., 571 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 1990) (ten-day notice requirement and substantial compliance principle)
- Oswald, supra, 80 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural defects and notice requirements analyzed)
- Graziani v. Randolph, 856 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2004) (open vs. strike distinction; equity in default rulings)