48 Pa. D. & C.5th 531
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Plaintiffs: William Penn Bank (mortgagee) and Muntasir Khandkar (buyer) seek to quiet title and obtain declaratory relief to nullify a confessed-judgment lien on property sold around Aug. 31, 2011.
- Defendants: East Investments, LLC (a Nevada entity) and its principal Bryan Benford — lien arose from a confessed judgment entered days before the land sale; Plaintiffs allege East Investments is Benford’s alter ego.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs filed complaint Feb. 5, 2014; service problems led to alternative service authorized June 20, 2014; sheriff posted service July 29, 2014; counsel for Defendants entered appearance Aug. 5, 2014.
- Defendants filed preliminary objections Sept. 12, 2014 (25 days after service); Plaintiffs filed preliminary objections to those preliminary objections as untimely under Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a).
- Court held Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ preliminary objections are sustained as Defendants’ filing was untimely; alternatively, on the merits the court would have overruled Defendants’ objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Defendants’ preliminary objections | Defs’ objections were filed late under Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a) and should be dismissed | Service was defective or not effective; actual receipt occurred later, so objections were timely | Sustained Plaintiffs’ objection; Defs’ preliminary objections dismissed as untimely (25 days late) |
| Sufficiency of veil-piercing/alter-ego allegations | Complaint pleads facts (under-capitalization, commingling, no corporate formalities, Benford control) sufficient at pleading stage to name Benford individually | Allegations are conclusory and fail to plead specific facts to pierce the corporate veil | On the merits the court would overrule the objection — complaint satisfies pleading standard for alter ego/piercing at this stage |
| Particularity of fraud/misrepresentation allegations | Complaint and factual narrative provide adequate detail to infer intentional conduct; fraud averred with sufficient particularity in context | Three identified paragraphs are insufficiently particular under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b) and should be stricken | Overruled — fraud/related allegations are sufficiently pleaded when read in context of the full complaint |
| Legal sufficiency of quiet-title/declaratory-judgment claims | Complaint states claims to nullify confessed judgment lien and clear title | Demurrer-style objection: other remedies exist and plaintiffs misassigned blame; claims legally deficient | Overruled — demurrer improperly raises factual matters; the complaint states legally cognizable claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Morcoal Co., 419 A.2d 821 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980) (untimely preliminary objections/demurrer may be dismissed)
- Romeo v. Looks, 535 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (substituted service reasonably calculated to give notice satisfies due process)
- Noetzel v. Glasgow, Inc., 487 A.2d 1372 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985) (service methods reasonably calculated to notify defendant satisfy due process)
- Bower v. Bower, 611 A.2d 181 (Pa. 1992) (standard for sustaining preliminary objections: must be clear and free from doubt)
- Allegheny Energy Supply Co. v. Wolf Run Mining Co., 53 A.3d 53 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (alter-ego/piercing standard: control and injustice if corporate fiction maintained)
- Ashley v. Ashley, 393 A.2d 637 (Pa. 1978) (discussing factors for piercing the corporate veil)
- Mahoney v. Furches, 468 A.2d 458 (Pa. 1983) (demurrer standard: resolve doubts in favor of overruling)
- Vision Serv. Plan v. Pa. AFSCME, 474 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (trial court discretion to refuse relief for late filings)