Wesbanco Bank v. Beattie, J.
Wesbanco Bank v. Beattie, J. No. 739 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- In 2006 Beattie obtained a $22,950 retail installment loan to purchase a 2004 Holiday Rambler; the contract was later assigned to WesBanco.
- Beattie defaulted in February 2013; WesBanco sent a notice of default/right to cure, repossessed (Beattie voluntarily surrendered) and sold the vehicle at public auction for $5,000.
- After applying sale proceeds, WesBanco claimed a $10,649.90 deficiency and sued for the balance plus contractual interest and costs in October 2013.
- Angelia Beattie defaulted for failure to answer; James Beattie (pro se) was later personally served and filed answers, discovery responses, and procedural motions.
- WesBanco moved for summary judgment in March 2016; the trial court granted it on April 18, 2016. James appealed, raising procedural-service, notice, and merits challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WesBanco) | Defendant's Argument (Beattie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Beattie’s motion to strike WesBanco’s motion for summary judgment for lack of service | Served adequately; court filings and prothonotary notice show Beattie received the motion | Certificate of service omitted service date and thus no proof of delivery; deprived him of fair opportunity to respond | No abuse of discretion; record (prothonotary notice, amended certificate) supports service and court could discredit Beattie’s claim |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist about WesBanco’s authority to seek deficiency | Contract assigned to WesBanco and MV Sales Finance Act permits recovery of deficiency even if not expressly in contract | The attached contract is illegible and does not expressly authorize deficiency recovery as required by statute | Summary judgment proper; statutory law independently allows deficiency recovery |
| Whether notices (default/right-to-cure and sale notice) were defective under MV Sales Finance Act and UCC §9614 | Notices substantially complied with statutory requirements; minor errors were not prejudicial and Beattie voluntarily surrendered collateral | Notices lacked certified-mail proof, had wrong dates, insufficient cure time, missing contact/storage info — thus defective | Notices were sufficient (minor errors not seriously misleading); Beattie did not show prejudice and voluntarily surrendered collateral |
| Whether denial of Beattie’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was erroneous | Trial court correctly confined consideration to pleadings; summary judgment disposition makes ruling proper | Requested the court consider extra-pleading materials; argued pleadings alone show defects warranting judgment | No error; motion denied appropriately and summary judgment disposition rendered the motion meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- WMI Group, Inc. v. Fox, 109 A.3d 740 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard for abuse of discretion in pretrial rulings)
- Malanchuk v. Sivchuk, 148 A.3d 860 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (summary judgment standard and de novo review of legal questions)
- Donaldson v. Davidson Bros., Inc., 144 A.3d 93 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Katzin v. Central Appalachia Petroleum, 39 A.3d 307 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (when judgment on the pleadings is proper)