McCarthy, J. v. Riddell, C.
3502 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- Craig and Ruth Riddell leased residential property to James and Nicole McCarthy; McCarthys paid a $2,140 security deposit and vacated after giving 60 days’ notice.
- McCarthys sued in Magisterial District Court after the Riddells delayed returning the deposit; MDJ entered judgment for McCarthys and they perfected a de novo appeal to Bucks County Court of Common Pleas.
- Riddells did not respond to the Bucks County complaint; McCarthys served a 10‑day notice and obtained a default judgment for $9,920.00 in March 2015; Riddells filed a timely petition to open/strike.
- Trial court initially struck the appeal for procedural reasons; Superior Court reversed, remanding to evaluate the petition to open under the standard three‑part test (promptness, reasonable excuse, meritorious defense).
- On remand, Bucks County denied the petition to open, finding promptness satisfied but that Riddells offered no reasonable excuse (deliberate decision to wait on informal attorney advice) and did not establish a meritorious defense to the security‑deposit claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCarthy) | Defendant's Argument (Riddell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition to open the default judgment should be granted | Default judgment valid; oppose opening absent valid excuse or meritorious defense | Petition was timely; Riddells relied on attorney advice that no response was needed until 10‑day notice | Denied — petition timely but insufficient excuse and no meritorious defense to deposit claim |
| Whether Riddells’ reliance on informal attorney advice constitutes a reasonable excuse for delay | Failure to respond not excused; notice to defend required within 20 days | Reliance on lawyer friend justified waiting until 10‑day notice; unsophistication excused delay | Not reasonable — court found a deliberate decision not to defend rather than excusable oversight |
| Whether compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 237.1 (10‑day notice) affected the opening analysis | 237.1 was complied with; Rule compliance supports judgment | Claimed nonreceipt of 10‑day notice undermines default entry | Rule compliance was not dispositive for opening; court found certification sufficient and focused on defendants’ conduct |
| Whether Riddells pleaded a meritorious defense | McCarthys asserted wrongful withholding of deposit; judgment supported | Riddells argued defenses including that deductions were proper or conversion defense | Court found no meritorious defense to the security‑deposit claim (statutory waiver for failure to timely provide list of damages); some merit on conversion defense but insufficient to open judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Morrell Beer Distributors, Inc., 29 A.3d 23 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for petition to open default judgment)
- US Bank N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2009) (three‑part test for opening default judgment and limits on legal unsophistication as excuse)
- Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 986 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. 2009) (petition to open analysis and denial where prongs unmet)
- Reid v. Boohar, 856 A.2d 156 (Pa. Super. 2004) (timeliness: petition filed one month after default deemed prompt)
- Seeger v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 836 A.2d 163 (Pa. Super. 2003) (excusable negligence vs. deliberate decision not to defend)
- Samuel Jacobs Distrib., Inc. v. Conditioned Air, Inc., 301 A.2d 907 (Pa. Super. 1973) (deliberate decision not to defend precludes opening default judgment)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Vanmeter, 67 A.3d 14 (Pa. Super. 2013) (distinguishing petition to strike issues and Rule 237.1 compliance)