Midwest Financial Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez
78 A.3d 614
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- MFAC appeals a Centre County order striking a confessed judgment entered in Allegheny County and transferred to Centre County.
- The Note granted a confession of judgment for defaults and stated Pennsylvania law governs; it authorized entry of judgment by confession in any competent court.
- Appellees (Centre County residents) defaulted; MFAC entered judgment in Allegheny County, then transferred it to Centre County.
- On May 11, 2010, MFAC offered a payment plan in which Appellees acknowledged the judgment and waived certain defenses; payments were made for about nine months.
- In July 2011 Appellees petitioned to strike/transfer the judgment arguing improper venue and other default-related issues; the trial court struck the judgment.
- The issue on appeal is whether the general venue rules of Rule 1006 apply to the initial filing of a confession of judgment under Rules 2950–2967.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do general venue rules apply to initial confession of judgment filings? | MFAC: Rule 1006 venue governs civil actions and should not automatically apply to confessions of judgment. | Lopez: Venue should be determined under general venue rules because the confession operates similarly to other civil actions. | General venue terms do not automatically apply to initial confession filings; reversal and reinstatement. |
| Does the May 11, 2010 payment plan waiver bar challenges to the judgment? | MFAC: Appellees waived defenses by acknowledging the debt and signing the plan, estopping attacks. | Lopez: Waiver does not authorize disregarding venue concerns that existed at entry. | Waiver effectively defeats grounds to strike; but ruling centers on venue, not waiver alone. |
| Is the confession-of-judgment clause a forum selection clause or a warrant of attorney, and what venue applies? | MFAC: Clause is broad and allows judgment in Allegheny County; venue valid where entered. | Lopez: Clause is a warrant of attorney, not a forum selection clause; does not automatically fix venue. | Warrant of attorney; not a forum selection clause; venue rules may apply, but general venue not automatically controlling. |
| Did the trial court err in striking the judgment on venue grounds and should the judgment be reinstated? | MFAC: The trial court erred by relying on non-record venue considerations and Mountbatten reasoning. | Lopez: The court acted properly based on lack of venue and procedures for confession actions. | Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the confession of judgment in Centre County. |
Key Cases Cited
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Copley Qu-Wayne Associates, 546 Pa. 98 (1996) (petition to strike must rely on record, cannot consider dehors-record facts)
- Hazer v. Zabala, 26 A.3d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguishes strike from open relief; focus on face-of-record defects)
- ESB Bank v. McDade, 2 A.3d 1236 (Pa. Super. 2010) (record must sustain judgment; open vs. strike distinction)
- Germantown Sav. Bank v. Talacki, 657 A.2d 1285 (Pa. Super. 1995) (warrant of attorney analyzed; not a forum selection clause)
- Dollar Bank, Federal Sav. Bank v. Northwood Cheese Co., Inc., 637 A.2d 309 (Pa. Super. 1994) (strict construction of warrants to confess judgments)
- Atlantic Nat. Trust, LLC v. Stivala Investments, Inc., 922 A.2d 919 (Pa. Super. 2007) (warrant of attorney; forum considerations discussed)
- PNC Bank v. Kerr, 802 A.2d 634 (Pa. Super. 2002) (venue and confessions of judgment; open/strike distinction)
- Morgan Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Hydraroll, Ltd., 759 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 2000) (forum selection clause analysis in venue)
- Autochoice Unlimited, Inc. v. Avangard Auto Finance, Inc., 9 A.3d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (forum selection clause presumptively valid; unreasonableness defenses)