Synchrony Bank v. Peters, H.
144 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 16, 2016Background
- Synchrony Bank sued Heather Peters to recover $1,569.41 on a credit card account after a magisterial district judge entered judgment for the Bank and Peters appealed de novo to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County.
- The Bank filed an amended complaint, served interrogatories and requests for admissions, and provided notice regarding documentary evidence; Peters answered the complaint with general denials and submitted unverified answers to discovery.
- The Bank moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Peters’ general denials operated as admissions under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(b), (2) Peters’ failure to verify answers to requests for admissions deemed them admitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4014(b), and (3) the Bank established an account stated/default on the account records.
- The court scheduled briefing and argument; Peters did not file a response or brief, and did not appear for argument on the motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank on December 22, 2015; Peters appealed but did not contest her failure to respond or explain waiver of issues raised for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether general denials in the answer preclude judgment | Bank: General denials are treated as admissions under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(b) and show no factual dispute | Peters: Denied allegations; claimed evidentiary problems from the magisterial hearing | Court: Denials had effect of admissions where not supported by verified, specific denials; no genuine dispute shown |
| Effect of unverified answers to requests for admission | Bank: Unverified responses are deemed admitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4014(b) | Peters: Responses denied generally but were not verified | Court: Unverified answers deemed admitted, supporting summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given Peters’ non-response | Bank: Entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law; plaintiff met its burden and defendant did not respond | Peters: Did not file response or appear; raised evidentiary and constitutional objections on appeal | Court: Under Pa.R.C.P. 1035.3(d) and related precedent, summary judgment may be entered against a non‑responding party; granted |
| Whether evidentiary and confrontation‑clause complaints preserved | Bank: Issues were not raised below; no factual record created | Peters: Asserted multiple evidentiary and constitutional errors in concise statement | Court: Issues waived for failure to raise them in response to the summary judgment motion; cannot be raised for first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Kozel, 97 A.3d 767 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 37 A.3d 1175 (Pa. 2012) (summary judgment standard and review principles)
- Devine v. Hutt, 863 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Super. 2004) (issues not raised below cannot be raised on appeal; summary judgment may be entered against non‑responding party)
- Thomas v. Elash, 781 A.2d 170 (Pa. Super. 2001) (permitting summary judgment when the nonmoving party fails to respond)