Hetrick-Bitner Funeral Home v. Ward, J.
664 WDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 25, 2025Background
- Jodi Ward (aka Jodi M. Ward, Jodi M. Nagy) stole over $150,000 from her employer, Hetrick-Bitner Funeral Home, and pleaded guilty to theft and forgery, with restitution ordered.
- Jodi and her husband, Daniel Ward, entered a settlement with Hetrick-Bitner, signing a judgment note with a confession of judgment clause, agreeing to repay $143,575 in monthly installments over ten years, finishing with a lump sum payment.
- The Wards defaulted, leading Hetrick-Bitner to file a complaint in confession of judgment in 2016; judgment was entered, and the Wards were properly notified.
- Hetrick-Bitner revived the judgment in 2023 and sought execution in 2024; the Wards received notice of execution on April 5, 2024.
- The Wards filed a motion to strike the confession of judgment on May 8, 2024, after the thirty-day window prescribed by Pa.R.C.P. 2959(a)(3).
- The trial court denied the motion, finding it untimely and without any defect on the face of the record, and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition to strike | Petition was untimely filed | Delay in docketing not the Wards' fault | Petition to strike was untimely |
| Consideration for settlement/judgment note | Defendants obligated to repay debt | Agreement gratuitous; Jodi already obligated via restitution | No defect on face of record; not grounds |
| Unconscionability and duress of agreement/judgment | Valid, entered into freely | Entered under duress to help Jodi avoid jail | Not proven; no facial defect |
| Application to Daniel as consumer credit transaction | Not relevant | No benefit for Daniel; should be treated as consumer credit deal | Not relevant; no defect on face of record |
Key Cases Cited
- ESB Bank v. McDade, 2 A.3d 1236 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for striking confessed judgment; facial defects required)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Copley Qu-Wayne Assocs., 683 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1996) (record must be self-sustaining to uphold confessed judgment)
- Midwest Fin. Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614 (Pa. Super. 2013) (distinguishing petitions to strike from petitions to open a confessed judgment)
- Ferrick v. Bianchini, 69 A.3d 642 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for opening a confessed judgment versus striking)