Pittsburgh Properties v. Casteel, C.
1597 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- CMG, a tenant, leased commercial office space from Pittsburgh Properties under a Lease (Dec. 2011) and a Lease Amendment & Renewal (Mar. 2012); Casteel (owner) and Paravati (individual) each signed unconditional personal Guarantees containing warrants of attorney to confess judgment.
- CMG vacated the premises in Oct./Nov. 2013 after ceasing operations.
- Pittsburgh Properties filed a confession of judgment action (July 11, 2014) for $53,894.50 and served Rule 2958.1 notices; appellants filed petitions to strike/open the judgment in December 2014.
- The trial court denied the petition to strike and later denied Paravati’s petition to open; appellate review was limited to Paravati because Casteel and CMG did not act promptly or meet procedural deadlines.
- Appellants raised challenges to (1) finance charges, (2) tenant-improvement charges, (3) conspicuity/validity of the confession clause in the Guarantee, (4) whether the warrant extended to Paravati individually, and (5) landlord breaches as excuse for default. The trial court rejected all claims; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pittsburgh Props.) | Defendant's Argument (Paravati) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether finance charges in the confessed judgment exceeded contractual authorization | Lease permits finance charges and late fees; charges were authorized and unobjected at the time | Finance fees applied at rates (e.g., ~8.25%) exceeding 1.5% authorized by Lease; seeks reduction | Court: Issue not preserved at trial; even on merits, Paravati produced no evidence linking charge types to specific invoices so no jury question—claim fails |
| Whether charges for tenant improvements were unauthorized because landlord contracted to perform them and incurs costs after CMG vacated | Confessed charges are valid as alleged in the judgment | Improvements were landlord’s responsibility under Lease Amendment and charged after tenant vacated, so unauthorized | Court: No evidentiary support from Paravati tying specific charges to landlord-obligated work; waived/insufficient—claim fails |
| Whether the confession-of-judgment clause in the Guarantee was unconscionably inconspicuous and thus invalid | Clause is valid, signed/initialed by guarantor and warning language prominently displayed | Clause is buried, not conspicuous, so invalidates warrant of attorney | Court: Clause was sufficiently conspicuous (initials on page, bolded/italicized warning near signature); doctrine requires written/signed warrant—here satisfied; claim fails |
| Whether landlord’s alleged breaches (heat, electrical, ceiling) excuse tenant’s default and justify opening judgment | Lease allocates repair/abatement risk to tenant for repairs/renovations; no entitlement to abatement for repairs beyond landlord control | Landlord failed to make needed repairs; breaches excuse nonpayment | Court: Evidence showed issues resulted from agreed renovations and were not landlord defaults; Paravati/Casteel failed to produce testimony or proofs to create a jury question—claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Neducsin v. Caplan, 121 A.3d 498 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard and equitable nature of petitions to open confessed judgment)
- Midwest Fin. Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614 (Pa. Super. 2013) (contract interpretation; clear unambiguous language controls)
- Graystone Bank v. Grove Estates, LP., 58 A.3d 1277 (Pa. Super. 2012) (conspicuity and placement analysis for warrants of attorney)
- Ferrick v. Bianchini, 69 A.3d 642 (Pa. Super. 2013) (warrant of attorney must be in writing and signed by person to be bound)
- Germantown Sav. Bank v. Talacki, 657 A.2d 1285 (Pa. Super. 1995) (failure to read contract is not a defense; context for conspicuity inquiry)