Lechowicz, R. v. Moser, E.
164 A.3d 1271
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Moser retained attorney Lechowicz for multiple business matters and defense work, including services related to Moser’s divorce/collection dispute (the Knox litigation).
- In Feb. 2004 Moser signed a judgment note confessing $55,000 in favor of Lechowicz with an accompanying affidavit waiving defenses.
- Lechowicz filed a complaint for confession of judgment in Feb. 2007; the prothonotary entered judgment for $55,000. A praecipe to revive was filed in Nov. 2013, increasing the docketed amount to $89,257.16.
- Moser filed a petition to open and/or strike the confessed judgment in Sept. 2014; the trial court denied relief in May 2016. Moser appealed.
- The Superior Court found the petition timely (because no notice of execution was served, so the 30‑day Rule 2959 window never began), but addressed the merits and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lechowicz) | Defendant's Argument (Moser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition to open/strike | Petition was untimely; trial court relied on delay | Petition was timely because no notice of execution was served, so 30‑day clock never started | Court: petition timely (trial court erred on timeliness), but case affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether the confessed judgment arose from a consumer credit transaction (making confession illegal) | Note and affidavit show non‑consumer transaction; judgment record is self‑sustaining | Some fees related to personal/divorce matters; note was effectively extension of credit for services, invoking Pa.R.C.P. 2950 prohibition | Court: on face of record creditor attested debt was not consumer credit; no fatal defect shown; strike denied |
| Right to contest reasonableness/amount of legal fees (meritorious defense) | Judgment note controls; plaintiff points to lack of evidence of an unreasonable fee offered by Moser | Moser asserts a bona fide defense to challenge fee reasonableness and amount | Court: Moser failed to develop or support the argument with law or evidence; claim waived and not a meritorious defense |
Key Cases Cited
- First Union Nat’l Bank v. Portside Refrigerated Servs., 827 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standards for reviewing petitions to open/strike confessed judgments)
- PNC Bank v. Kerr, 802 A.2d 634 (Pa. Super. 2002) (petitions to open are equitable and reviewed for abuse of discretion; due‑process concerns tied to execution)
- Thomas Assocs. Investigative & Consulting Servs., Inc. v. GPI Ltd., Inc., 711 A.2d 506 (Pa. Super. 1998) (30‑day promptness requirement attaches only after notice of execution; Rule 236 notice is not notice of execution)
- Midwest Fin. Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedure and nature of confession of judgment proceedings; entry of confessed judgment differs from adversarial process)
- Willits v. Fryer, 734 A.2d 425 (Pa. Super. 1999) (Pa.R.C.P. 2950 prohibits judgments by confession in consumer credit transactions)