Terraces at East Falls Condominium Assoc. v. East Falls Terraces, LLC
736 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- East Falls Terraces, LLC owns Unit 301 in the Terraces at East Falls condominium; the Association sued for unpaid condominium dues in municipal court.
- The Association’s claim was dismissed twice for lack of service, then reinstated; it filed an affidavit of service stating personal service on an unnamed white 28-year-old female at Unit 301 on June 3, 2014.
- East Falls did not appear at the municipal hearing; the court entered default judgment on June 30, 2014 for $6,154.33 and later the Association garnished rents to satisfy the judgment.
- East Falls filed a municipal petition to open the judgment on April 14, 2015 (denied); then filed in the Court of Common Pleas on June 9, 2015 (also denied).
- East Falls appealed the denial of its petition to open; the Commonwealth Court affirmed on January 27, 2017, finding service sufficient, the petition untimely, no adequate excuse, and no meritorious defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Association) | Defendant's Argument (East Falls) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was service sufficient? | Affidavit of personal service on an adult at Unit 301 satisfied notice requirements | No actual notice to East Falls; service was invalid because the person served was unidentified | Court held affidavit adequate; service reasonably calculated to give notice |
| Was the petition to open filed promptly? | Judgment notice mailed June 30, 2014; timeliness judged from that date | Petition filed April 14, 2015; argued delay justified by lack of notice | Court held petition filed after nine months was not prompt |
| Did East Falls have an excusable reason for failing to appear? | N/A (relied on sufficiency of service) | Claimed lack of receipt of process and thus excusable absence | Court found no adequate excuse because service was sufficient |
| Did East Falls plead a meritorious defense to underlying claim? | Association maintained debt for dues was owed | East Falls offered no substantive defense in its petition | Court held East Falls failed to plead any meritorious defense |
Key Cases Cited
- First Seneca Bank & Trust Co. v. Laurel Mountain Development Corp., 485 A.2d 1086 (Pa. 1984) (petition to open is an appeal to the court’s equitable powers)
- Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Services, Inc., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997) (three-part test to open judgment: prompt filing, excusable failure, meritorious defense)
- Seeger v. First Union National Bank, 836 A.2d 163 (Pa. Super. 2003) (when improper service alleged, court must address service first; improper service requires opening)
- Pennsylvania Coal Mining Ass’n v. Insurance Dept., 370 A.2d 685 (Pa. 1977) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Ruczynski v. Jesray Constr. Corp., 326 A.2d 326 (Pa. 1974) (timeliness of petition to open measured from receipt of notice of judgment)
- Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 986 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review: denial of petition to open is reviewed for abuse of discretion)