Stoltzfus, S. v. Green Line Labs, LLC.
303 A.3d 447
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background:
- In June 2020 Green Line Labs, LLC (GLL) leased a 10,000 sq. ft. facility for hemp cultivation from Samuel A. and Susan J. Stoltzfus for $55,000/year.
- On August 6, 2021 the Stoltzfuses filed a Complaint and a Confession of Judgment seeking past-due rent, accelerated rent through the lease term, fees, and possession (total claimed $110,766.17).
- Writs/praecipes were filed in fall 2021; Stoltzfuses ejected GLL in November 2021; GLL later sought access to retrieve equipment and alleged improper disposal/auction of assets.
- On June 17, 2022 GLL filed a petition to strike (and/or open) the confessed judgment, alleging facial defects: improper service, lack of relation between the cognovit clause and GLL’s signature, and impermissible double recovery (possession plus accelerated rent).
- The trial court granted GLL’s petition and struck the confessed judgment in full on August 22, 2022; the Stoltzfuses appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord may obtain confessed judgments for both possession and accelerated rent | Stoltzfuses: entitled at least to possession plus past-due or accelerated rent (or possession plus money damages other than accelerated rent) | GLL: confessing both possession and accelerated rent is impermissible double recovery and renders the judgment defective on its face | Court: Confessing both is prohibited; the face-of-record defect made the judgment void and justified striking the entire confessed judgment |
| Timeliness of GLL’s petition to strike (filed ~8 months after notice) | Stoltzfuses: petition was untimely under Pa.R.C.P. 2959 and should be denied absent compelling reason | GLL: facial defect (void judgment) may be attacked despite delay because a void judgment is invalid ab initio | Court: Because the judgment was void on its face (double recovery), timeliness did not bar relief; striking was appropriate |
| Whether trial court lacked personal jurisdiction / whether cognovit clause was validly executed | Stoltzfuses: lease contained a bold, signed warrant of attorney and submission to jurisdiction; judgment therefore valid | GLL: record shows unclear relation between cognovit clause and signature and service problems that undermine validity | Court: Did not need to resolve these because facial defect disposing of the judgment warranted strike; remaining arguments not reached |
| Whether the remedy should have been to open (adjust money damages) rather than strike the confessed judgment | Stoltzfuses: court should have preserved possession judgment and opened the money judgment for recalculation | GLL: when record discloses a fatal facial defect (void judgment), striking is proper | Court: Homart and Pops do not require opening when a petition to strike is filed; where judgment is void on its face, striking (annulment) was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Homart Dev. Co. v. Sgrenci, 662 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Super. 1995) (landlord may not obtain both possession and accelerated rent; money judgment must be limited or opened)
- Pops PCE TT, LP v. R & R Rest. Group, LLC, 208 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2019) (landlord in possession may be limited to actual damages as of possession date; accelerated rent impermissible)
- H. A. Steen Indus., Inc. v. Richer Comm’n, 314 A.2d 319 (Pa. Super. 1973) (lessor who takes possession may not also recover rent for the unexpired term)
- Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Servs., Inc., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997) (petition to strike tests for fatal defects on the face of the record)
- Dime Bank v. Andrews, 115 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2015) (petition to strike is limited to record as filed; defects remediable by nunc pro tunc amendment should not be stricken)
- Grady v. Nelson, 286 A.3d 259 (Pa. Super. 2022) (a prothonotary that lacks authority to enter judgment produces a void judgment)
- M & P Mgmt., L.P. v. Williams, 937 A.2d 398 (Pa. 2007) (void judgments cannot be validated by passage of time)