Keller v. Mey
67 A.3d 1
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Keller sued Appellants on September 8, 2010; Appellants did not respond to the complaint.
- Keller filed a praecipe for entry of default judgment on October 27, 2010 and the prothonotary entered judgment the same day.
- Appellants moved to strike the default judgment on November 9, 2010; the court issued a rule to show cause and set a hearing for November 17, 2010.
- The November 17 hearing was rescheduled to November 22, 2010; on the same day, another rule to show cause was issued and a December 16, 2010 hearing was set.
- Appellants filed a petition to open the default judgment on November 28, 2010; the court held an evidentiary hearing on December 16, 2010 but only heard argument, and denied the petition to open on December 22, 2010.
- In 2011, damages were to be tried; the court denied Appellants’ motion to strike on November 1, 2011 and Appellants appealed on November 17, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment was properly entered under 237.1 notice requirements | Keller's notice certification attached to the praecipe complied with 237.1 | Appellants contend notice must be filed before the praecipe | Default judgment valid; 237.1 requires certification and attached notice, not timing prior filing. |
| Whether the petition to strike was properly denied | Record supports entry of default; no fatal defect visible on face of record | 9-1-1 submission shows irregularities | Petition to strike properly denied; face of record supports judgment. |
| Whether the petition to open the default judgment should have been granted | Petition to open meritorious defense; timely filed | Equitable standards not met; issues inadequately developed on appeal | Waived for failure to adequately develop argument; no abuse of discretion shown. |
| Is the appeal proper and timely given post-judgment proceedings and damages appeal | Appeal lies from denial of strike/open prior to damages | Record issues and mootness concerns | Court had jurisdiction to review; appeal timely; issues moot as to damages posture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aquilino v. Philadelphia Catholic Archdiocese, 884 A.2d 1269 (Pa.Super.2005) (demonstrates standard for striking a judgment; face-of-record defects)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa.Super.2009) (demurrer-like nature of petition to strike)
- Cintas Corp. v. Lee's Cleaning Servs., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa.1997) (criteria for striking a default judgment)
- Kelly v. Siuma, 34 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super.2011) (abuse of discretion standard for petition to open)
- Mother’s Rest., Inc. v. Krystkiewicz, 861 A.2d 327 (Pa.Super.2004) (appealability of denial of petition to strike/open before damages)