Hackett, K. v. Home Solutions Group
380 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 7, 2022Background
- Kathleen Hackett sued Home Solutions Group, M Squared Group, and Gary J. Murray Jr. for trespass, encroachment, and emotional distress after neighboring construction allegedly damaged her long‑held garden lots.
- Complaint filed February 2019; Hackett recorded a lis pendens and attempted service at a Thyme Lane address by delivering process to Gary Murray Sr., who resided there.
- Appellants did not answer; trial court entered default judgments (M Squared June 2019; Murray and Home Solutions August 2019) and later awarded Hackett $100,000 at a default trial when Appellants did not appear.
- In December 2020 Appellants moved to strike and/or open the defaults, arguing service was improper because Murray lived elsewhere and the companies did not do business at Thyme Lane.
- Hackett submitted documentary evidence (company filings, property/deed/mortgage records, redevelopment authority and L&I notices) showing Thyme Lane was used for business notices and that Gary Sr. had roles with Home Solutions.
- The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing; Appellants’ new evidence on reconsideration (a Comcast bill and additional org documents) was rejected as untimely. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hackett) | Defendant's Argument (Appellants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a hearing on service when competing evidence existed | Hearing not required; the record and submitted documents establish Thyme Lane as Murray’s residence/business address | A hearing was required because Appellants produced evidence (e.g., cable bill) showing Murray lived elsewhere, creating disputed facts | Court held no hearing required; no material factual dispute in the record and the trial court did not abuse discretion in deciding on briefs alone |
| Whether service on Murray personally was proper under Pa.R.C.P. 402 by serving an adult family member at Thyme Lane | Service on Gary Sr. at Thyme Lane was proper because record evidence showed Murray resided there and process to a family member sufficed | Service was improper; Murray did not reside at Thyme Lane at the time and Gary Sr. lacked authority to accept personal service | Court held service on Gary Sr. at Thyme Lane satisfied Rule 402 because record showed Murray resided there |
| Whether service on Home Solutions and M Squared was proper under Pa.R.C.P. 424 by serving Gary Sr. at Thyme Lane | Service was proper: documents showed Thyme Lane was used for company notices and Gary Sr. had executive/agent roles or was person in charge | Service improper because Gary Sr. was not an authorized agent/person in charge and the companies did business elsewhere | Court held service proper under Rule 424: sufficient connection existed and Thyme Lane was a regular place for business notices; Gary Sr. could accept service |
| Whether Appellants’ post‑judgment/extrinsic evidence warranted opening the default judgments | New evidence (Comcast bill, org docs) showed improper service and justified opening or striking the defaults | Appellants untimely raised evidence on reconsideration; burden was on them to present proof earlier; defaults not promptly challenged | Court held reconsideration evidence was not properly before the trial court; petition to open also denied for lack of promptness and failure to show reasonable excuse or meritorious defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Leffring, 235 A.2d 435 (Pa. Super. 1967) (discusses when hearing may be required on residence/service disputes)
- Frycklund v. Way, 599 A.2d 1332 (Pa. Super. 1991) (court may hold hearing to determine residence for service purposes)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Copley Qu‑Wayne Assocs., 683 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1996) (matters dehors the record may be considered when deciding petitions to open)
- Digital Commc’ns Warehouse, Inc. v. Allen Invs., LLC, 223 A.3d 278 (Pa. Super. 2019) (distinguishes petition to strike vs. petition to open; strike requires fatal defect on face of record)
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Watters, 163 A.3d 1019 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standards and discretion for opening default judgments)
- Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Serv., Inc., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997) (service on a person "for the time being in charge" is proper when reasonably calculated to give notice)
- Trexler v. McDonald’s Corp., 118 A.3d 408 (Pa. Super. 2015) (service rules must be strictly followed)
- Capstone Cap. Grp., LLC v. Alexander Perry, Inc., 263 A.3d 1178 (Pa. Super. 2021) (trial court did not abuse discretion in declining a hearing under Phila. C.P. Local Rule when no fact‑finding was necessary)