Moshier, C. v. Stevenson, G.
Moshier, C. v. Stevenson, G. No. 984 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 20, 2017Background
- Moshier sued Stevenson in Magisterial District Court for unpaid horse training fees; process server Geoffrey Zajac filed an affidavit claiming service at Stevenson’s New York residence on July 2015 to a “Jane Doe, Wife.”
- Stevenson did not appear at the September 2, 2015 hearing; a default judgment for $8,720 was entered and notice of judgment served October 2, 2015.
- Moshier later filed a Petition to Confirm Bill of Sale (service by first-class mail); the court issued a Rule to Show Cause in December 2015, which Stevenson acknowledged receiving.
- Stevenson filed a January 11, 2016 Response admitting residency at the served address, but denied receiving original service and contended the Magisterial District Court lacked personal jurisdiction; she also filed a cross-petition to open or strike the default judgment.
- After a May 17, 2016 hearing, the trial court denied both Moshier’s Petition to Confirm Bill of Sale and Stevenson’s Petitions to Open and to Strike the default judgment; Stevenson appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moshier) | Defendant's Argument (Stevenson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly considered service of other documents when evaluating original process | Court may consider contemporaneous service evidence to assess credibility of service claims | Only original process matters; other mailed/legal papers shouldn’t justify finding valid original service | Trial court properly considered other service evidence to assess credibility and did not err |
| Whether affidavit of service and evidence support lack of valid original service (person served description; Stevenson in surgery) | Affidavit describes an adult in charge of the residence; supports valid service | Affidavit describes a person Stevenson does not know and Stevenson was in surgery at time of service | Trial court credited affidavit and found Stevenson’s testimony not credible; service was valid |
| Whether Stevenson offered a justifiable excuse for delay in filing Petition to Open (filed >10 days after judgment) | Not applicable (Moshier argues procedural requirements must be met) | Failure of original service excuses delay; subject-matter jurisdiction challenge can be raised anytime | Challenge was to personal jurisdiction, not subject-matter; Stevenson failed to provide credible excuse, so petition to open fails |
| Whether Stevenson alleged a meritorious defense to open the judgment (lack of jurisdiction due to improper service) | Service was proper; no meritorious defense shown | Lack of valid original service deprived court of jurisdiction; defense merits opening judgment | Court found no meritorious defense because service was properly effected and credibility of Stevenson’s account lacked support |
Key Cases Cited
- Stauffer v. Hevener, 881 A.2d 868 (Pa. Super. 2005) (distinguishes petition to open from petition to strike)
- Oswald v. WB Public Square Associates, LLC, 80 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural-rule issues reviewed de novo)
- Skonieczny v. Cooper, 37 A.3d 1211 (Pa. Super. 2012) (applications of civil procedure rules)
- Midwest Financial Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614 (Pa. Super. 2013) (petition to strike limited to fatal defects on face of record)
- Erie Ins. Co. v. Bullard, 839 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 2003) (judgment entered without authority is void ab initio)
- Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Services, Inc., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997) (strict compliance with service rules required; improper service deprives court of personal jurisdiction)
- Graziani v. Randolph, 856 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2004) (petition to open reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Reid v. Boohar, 856 A.2d 156 (Pa. Super. 2004) (requirements to open judgment filed more than ten days after entry)
- US Bank N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2009) (petitioner must satisfy all opening requirements to prevail)