Shipley Fuels Marketing, LLC v. Medrow
37 A.3d 1215
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Shipley confessed judgment on Medrows' debt after the Johnsons' real estate closing but before the deed was recorded.
- The judgment docket showed entry on November 30, 2009; however, the judgment index was not updated until December 30, 2009.
- The Johnsons purchased the Beau Drive property on November 16, 2009 and recorded their deed on December 4, 2009.
- Shipley sought a revival of the lien in May 2010, arguing its pre-recording judgment gave priority despite indexing delays.
- The trial court held liens arise only when a judgment is entered in the judgment index; because indexing occurred after the Johnsons’ deed, no lien attached to the property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a confessed judgment create a lien before indexing? | Shipley: CHESCOPIN suffices for notice; indexing not required. | Johnsons: Rule 3023 requires entry in the judgment index for a lien. | No; lien attaches only when indexed. |
| Is lien priority governed by the deed recording date versus judgment indexing date? | Shipley argues pre-indexing judgment gives priority despite deed timing. | Johnsons: priority arises from indexing date, not the general docket. | Deed recorded before indexing; no lien against the property. |
| Can the general docket or CHESCOPIN provide notice to defeat the indexing requirement? | Shipley emphasizes ease of cross-searching CHESCOPIN as notice. | Court rejects reliance on general docket; rule 3023 controls. | General docket does not override judgment index for lien priority. |
| What is the controlling rule for lien priority in Pennsylvania? | Shipley relies on prior practice before Rule 3023. | Rule 3023 demands indexing as the sole basis for lien priority. | Rule 3023 governs; priority from the judgment index date. |
| Does Coral Gables v. Kerl affect the primacy of the judgment index here? | Shipley cites Coral Gables to argue notice via docket. | Coral Gables does not override the judgment index requirement. | Coral Gables not controlling; judgment index remains primary. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Nat. Bank of Spring Mills v. Walker, 296 Pa. 192 (Pa. 1929) (general rule: purchaser not bound to look beyond judgment index)
- Basile v. H&R Block, Inc., 777 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. 2001) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant and non-movant)
- Ertel v. Patriot-News Co., 674 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 1996) (summary judgment review standard)
- Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.2d 275 (Pa. 1939) (notice considerations in lien priority)