Rosario, A. v. Northwood Manor, LLC.
2888 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 17, 2016Background
- Rosario sued Chiu, Northwood Manor, and Philly Management Group for negligence after a 2007 fall; complaint alleged defendants had control of the premises where she was injured.
- Chiu was served with the writ of summons at two addresses: his Brighton Street residence and a Castor Avenue property he owned and leased to PMG.
- Defendants did not respond; Rosario mailed the 10-day default notice and praecipe for default to the Castor Avenue address and the court entered default and later assessed damages of $9,000,000 jointly and severally (2008; re-assessed 2009 after a bankruptcy stay).
- Rosario filed a writ of revival in 2012 and personally served Chiu at his Brighton Street residence in October 2014.
- Chiu filed a petition to strike or open the default judgment in March 2015; the trial court denied relief in August 2015; Chiu appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment must be stricken for facial defect in service of the 10‑day notice under Pa.R.C.P. 237.1 and service rule 440 | Rosario complied by mailing the 10‑day notice to Chiu’s address of record (Castor Ave.); praecipe certified mailing to last known address | Chiu argued the notice was mailed to tenants at Castor Ave., not his residence or place of business, so service failed under Rule 440 and Rule 237.1 notice was ineffective | Court held no fatal defect on the face of the record: notice mailed to an address of record and service at Castor Ave. was permissible under Rule 440, so judgment not stricken |
| Whether the default judgment should be opened (equitable relief) — promptness, excuse, meritorious defense | Chiu argued he had no nexus to the underlying defendants and never received the default notice; equities favor opening the judgment | Rosario pointed to long delay and lack of excuse for failing to answer the complaint; service of writ of revival showed Chiu learned of judgment in Oct. 2014 | Court exercised discretion to deny opening: petition was not promptly filed (≈168 days after revival); Chiu failed to justify original non‑response and did not meet required criteria for opening |
Key Cases Cited
- Oswald v. WB Public Square Associates, LLC, 80 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for rule‑based questions of law).
- Green Acres Rehab. & Nursing Ctr. v. Sullivan, 113 A.3d 1261 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial court discretion review for petitions to open).
- Erie Ins. Co. v. Bullard, 839 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 2003) (failure to comply with Rule 237.1 renders record facially defective).
- Cintas Corp. v. Lee's Cleaning Servs., Inc., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997) (petition to strike looks only to the record as it existed when judgment was entered).
- Mother's Rest., Inc. v. Krystkiewicz, 861 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 2004) (three‑part test for opening default judgments: promptness, excuse, meritorious defense).
- US Bank N.A. v. Mallory, 982 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2009) (court may not open judgment on equities alone; delay of 82 days held not prompt).