PNC Bank v. Bluestream Technology, Inc.
14 A.3d 831
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Bluestream filed a petition to strike/open a confessed judgment entered against it in the amount of $2,057,660.45 on May 20, 2009.
- Bluestream had previously purchased Bluestream Technologies LLC with financing assistance from PNC Bank and later defaulted on the loan.
- The Petegorskys and Bluestream alleged PNC made fraudulent/misleading statements about the loan and the BTLLC purchase.
- Bluestream argued lis pendens should bar or delay collection as it had a prior action seeking rescission/injunction related to the same loans.
- The trial court denied the petition to strike/open; the case was appealed to determine lis pendens applicability and merits of defenses.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court ultimately remanded with instructions to open the judgment and hold the case in abeyance pending resolution of the prior action, consolidating where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lis pendens supports opening/striking a confessed judgment? | Bluestream asserts lis pendens applies; prior action asserts same rights/remedies. | PNC Bank argues lis pendens not applicable since judgment already entered. | Lis pendens does not support striking; but can support opening if meritorious defense shown. |
| Are two distinct loan instruments properly reflected in a single itemization? | Bluestream contends two instruments require separate itemization. | PNC argues single line suffices based on loan documents. | No fatal defect; itemization adequate when read with the loan documents. |
| Do fraud/misrepresentation defenses merit opening of the judgment? | Amended prior complaint shows fraud/misrepresentation defenses that raise jury questions. | Talacki parol evidence rule bars reliance on misrepresentations absent fraud in inducement. | Fraud/misrepresentation defenses are meritorious and can support opening; parol evidence does not bar them here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis Cookie Co., Inc. v. Wasley, 389 Pa.Super. 112 (1989) (lis pendens question determined from pleadings; same parties; same rights/relief tests)
- Hessenbruch v. Markle, 194 Pa. 581 (1900) (origin of lis pendens; same persons in both bills)
- Crutchfield v. Eaton Corp., 806 A.2d 1259 (Pa.Super.2002) (duality of actions; duplication of effort may justify abeyance)
- Virginia Mansions Condominium Association v. Lampl, 380 Pa.Super. 452 (1988) (lis pendens not available where remedies differ despite same facts)
- RAIT Partnership, LP v. E Pointe Properties I, Ltd., 957 A.2d 1275 (Pa.Super.2008) (meritorious defenses may support opening of judgment)
- Germantown Mfg. Co. v. Rawlinson, 341 Pa.Super. 42 (1985) (fraud/misrepresentation defenses can be meritorious)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 578 Pa. 479 (2004) (parol evidence rule; when writing is entire contract, parol evidence generally inadmissible)
- Scott Factors Inc. v. Hartley, 425 Pa. 290 (1967) (strict construction of warrant of attorney for confession of judgment)