Guntrum, D. v. Citicorp Trust Bank, 1714 WDA 2015

Plaintiff Douglas Guntrum sued Citicorp Trust Bank in 2009 alleging Citicorp failed to honor credit disability insurance tied to a 2003 mortgage; foreclosure followed and Citicorp bought the property at sheriff’s sale.
Guntrum served an Amended Complaint and multiple notices at Citicorp’s Wilmington, Delaware office; Citicorp did not answer and a default judgment was entered; damages of $125,558 were awarded after a damages-only hearing.
Citicorp later learned of the action (it says) when its Texas legal department received the default-judgment materials on February 10, 2010; Citicorp filed a Petition to Open on March 4, 2010 (22 days after the legal department’s claimed notice, 83 days after actual service at Delaware office).
The trial court granted Citicorp’s Petition to Open, accepted Citicorp’s explanation of a clerical forwarding error, and allowed Citicorp to file defenses; later the court granted summary judgment to Citicorp on the remaining claims.
On appeal the Superior Court reversed: it held Citicorp’s petition was not promptly filed based on the December 11, 2009 service date and that Citicorp’s repeated failures to forward multiple filings to its legal department were not a legitimate, excusable clerical error.
Result: Superior Court reversed the Order to Open and the summary-judgment order and remanded for re-entry of the default judgment in favor of Guntrum for $125,558 plus interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Citicorp’s Petition to Open filed promptly?	The petition was untimely because Citicorp was served at Delaware office on Dec 11, 2009 and waited 83 days to file.	Promptness measured from when Citicorp’s legal department actually received notice (Feb 10, 2010); petition filed 22 days later.	Held for Plaintiff: promptness measured from the defendant’s receipt of service; 83-day delay was not prompt.
Was Citicorp’s excuse for failing to respond legitimate?	Repeated service of six separate filings over months cannot be excused as a single clerical error; indicates systemic failure, not excusable oversight.	Failure was due to a clerical/oversight in mail-forwarding to the legal department; unintentional and investigated promptly.	Held for Plaintiff: repeated failures over months are not a legitimate clerical excuse for not responding.
Should the default judgment be opened despite first two-prong failures?	N/A (Plaintiff opposes opening).	Citicorp argued it had meritorious defenses and equities favored opening.	Court declined to reach meritorious-defense prong because Citicorp failed prongs one and two.
Remedy — re-entry or leave to defend?	Re-entry of default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.	Leave to defend and litigate merits (trial court had allowed defense and later granted summary judgment for Citicorp).	Superior Court ordered re-entry of the default judgment for $125,558 plus interest.

Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 986 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standards for opening default judgment: prompt filing, reasonable excuse, meritorious defense)
McCoy v. Pub. Acceptance Corp., 305 A.2d 698 (Pa. 1973) (all three prongs must coalesce to open a default judgment)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2009) (82-day delay was not prompt)
Pappas v. Stefan, 304 A.2d 143 (Pa. 1973) (55-day delay held not prompt)
Flynn v. American West Airlines, 742 A.2d 695 (Pa. Super. 1999) (unintentional failure to reply due to defective mail system may be insufficient excuse)
Kelly v. Siuma, 34 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2011) (corporate defendants are held to a higher standard to monitor and respond to legal claims)