Smith v. Morrell Beer Distributors, Inc.
29 A.3d 23
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Loretta Smith sued Morrell Beer Distributors, Inc., Bartus, Pierce, and John Doe for injuries from a minor’s purchase and distribution of alcohol at Morrell's; Fugarino is the named purchaser involved.
- Smith alleged Nicholas Fugarino bought Natural Ice Beer and that beer was sold to minors, leading to Smith’s injury when she, 16, became intoxicated and injured herself.
- Morrell Beer Distributors received the complaint on December 3, 2009, with a 20-day pleading deadline under Pa.R.C.P. 1018.1.
- Defendants appeared for case management on December 10, 2009 but did not file a responsive pleading by the deadline.
- A ten-day notice under Pa.R.C.P. 237.1 was sent on December 23, 2009; no responsive pleading was filed.
- A default judgment was entered, and on January 12, 2010 Morrell filed a petition to open; it failed to attach a proposed answer as required by Rule 237.3(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition to open default judgment. | Smith argues timely petition showed meritorious defenses and excusable delay. | Morrell contends no proper attachment and no meritorious defense; delay was not excused. | No reversible error; petition not timely or meritorious; discretion affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schultz v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 505 Pa. 90 (Pa. 1984) (three-part test for relief from default judgment—timeliness, meritorious defense, excuse)
- Penn-Delco School District v. Bell Atlantic-Pa. Inc., 745 A.2d 14 (Pa.Super.1999) (meritorious defense can support relief despite defective petition)
- Stauffer v. Hevener, 881 A.2d 868 (Pa.Super.2005) (verified records may cure deficiencies in petition to open)
- Himmelreich v. Hostetter Farm Supply, 703 A.2d 478 (Pa.Super.1997) (look beyond attached answer to determine meritorious defense)
- Boatin v. Miller, 955 A.2d 424 (Pa.Super.2008) (timely petition may entitle relief where meritorious defense shown, even if initial filing deficient)
- Attix v. Lehman, 925 A.2d 864 (Pa.Super.2007) (preserves March 10-day rule interpretation for Rule 237.3)
- Dumoff v. Spencer, 754 A.2d 1280 (Pa.Super.2000) (abuse of discretion standard for opening default judgments)
- Penn-Delco School District v. Bell Atlantic-Pa. Inc., 745 A.2d 14 (Pa.Super.1999) (ease burden for relief from judgment; avoid technicalities)