*1 BAER, concur. Justice being prohibited considering
This Court facts not Bulger, see Welsh v. record, 504, 581, 548 Pa. 698 A.2d (Pa.1997) v. (citing, McCaffrey Pittsburgh Athletic Associa- tion, (Pa.1972) 293 A.2d (appellate record)), cannot consider is not of the I anything part which curiam per join the Court’s denying Application Order Reargument for of Petitioner Philadelphia Entertainment Partners L.P. Development Casino Philadel- Foxwoods d/b/a/ phia Request Expedited Treatment.
937A.2d 398 MANAGEMENT, L.P., Appellee, M P&
v. WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Michael D.
Supreme Pennsylvania.
Argued March 2007.
Decided Nov. *2 Giles, Esq., David M. Bellingham, Esq., Bruce William Rosen, P.C., for Philadelphia, Michael & Spector Gadon Williams. Meltzer, of Peter E. Law Offices Esq.,
Peter Edward Meltzer, P.C., L.P. Management, for M & P SAYLOR, CASTILLE, CAPPY, C.J., and
BEFORE: BALDWIN, EAKIN, BAER and JJ.
OPINION BALDWIN. Justice determined Pa.R.C.P. Superior
2959(a)(3), that a (providing petition amended in 1996 as must be made within a confessed open strike off notice) intended to of of written was thirty days receipt striking reopening judgments off or potential eliminate rule, regard in the period time announced thirty-day after the void, A or valid. voidable less of whether subject the court lacks arises when void jurisdic- court that lacks from a and a jurisdiction, time. of through passage be made valid tion cannot did not Because the lower reverse. Accordingly, we judg- of the confessed as to the status a determination make of whether case, for a determination in this we remand ment of an and the issuance actually at issue is determination. upon that order based appropriate interpretation intention and question, regarding This 2959(a)(3), separate promissory arises from two P Management, M amounts memorializing *3 bank, by irrevocably empowers Undersigned hereby authorizes and officer, by by attorney, the employee agent, or its or any or authorized of any of record in the Commonwealth protlionotary or clerk of law, by upon the occur- permitted Pennsylvania or elsewhere where default, judgment against appear for and confess rence of a undersigned any jurisdiction which undersigned in in in favor of bank any of or all of any property is located for the amount or liabilities, of its collection together of suit and with actual with the costs fees, costs, including attorneys' with or without declara- reasonable errors, tion, right stay of execution and the of all without with release forthwith, copy doing note or a and for so this to issue execution warrant, hereby undersigned by verified affidavit shall be a sufficient stay or any appraisement, all and releases all relief from and waives any hereinafter enacted. exemption law in state now in force or of by agreeing may confess Undersigned acknowledges that that bank hereunder, prior judicial right in a it waives the to notice liabilities, undersigned rights and proceeding to determine its and judgment against acknowledges may a that bank obtain further knowledge undersigned’s prior or consent and undersigned without off, defense, or opportunity any set counterclaim to raise without undersigned expressly waives undersigned may and other claim have rights explicit part of the consideration. as an and material such against judgment may be exercised under- foregoing power to confess bank elects until the signed time or at different times as the at one discharged. fully liabilities are R. 29, Judgment July of 1997 note: Confession attorney any any irrevocably empowers Borrower authorizes any appear for and confess of court of record to clerk against Note, owing on this Borrower for such sums as are due clauses, and the amendments did not contain express cognovit they did each although incorporation contain language.2 **567On 5, 2001, P, July Appellee M & notified that he in Williams was 28, default promissory under both notes. September On PM & filed a in Complaint Judgment Confession of for both $196,102.12 notes and entered for against It Williams. is not disputed properly Williams was served with writ execution and a notice of sheriffs sale for on properties February 2003. This notice requirements alerted Williams to the specif Pa.R.C.P. that a ically challenge to a Confession of Judgment must be filed thirty days within of service of a notice of execution. 2959(a)(3). § filed a to strike petition
Williams
the confessed judgment
later,
24, 2005,
years
February
two
on
claiming that
was void because the amended notes did
filed,
suit,
stay
with or without declaration
costs of
without
greater
execution and with an amount not to exceed the
of fifteen
(15%)
$5,000
percent
principal
of the
amount of such
Note,
copy
by
added for collection fees. If a
of this
verified
affidavit
bank,
action,
by or on behalf of
shall have been filed in such
it shall
Note,
necessary
original
not be
to file
authority granted
of this
hereby
by
shall not be exhausted
the initial exercise thereof and
be exercised
Bank from time to time. There shall be excluded
any judgment
solely
from the lien of
pursuant
obtained
to this
paragraph
improved
any
having
all
real estate in
area identified as
special
regulations promulgated
flood hazards under
under the Flood
community
Disaster Protection Act of
if the
in which such area
participating
is located is
Program.
the National Flood Insurance
Any
upon property
such exclusion shall not affect
lien
not so
excluded.
R. 84.
*4
10,
Incorporation
2.
clause from June
1993 amendment: "In all other
respects,
hereby
the Note is
ratified and confirmed.” R. 56.
5,
5,
The
April
last three clauses from the June
1992 amendment to the
promissory
1991
note state:
5.
part
This instrument shall be deemed to be a
Note.
6. All
to
in
Payee
references
the Note
documents delivered to the
(as
connection with the Credit Accommodations
defined in the
Agreement
Payee
Amendment to Loan
between the Maker and the
hereof)
dated the date
shall be deemed references
Note as
amended herein.
respects,
hereby
In all other
the Note is
ratified and confirmed.
R. 97.
not contain
confession of
clauses.
According
Williams,
Estate,
Egyptian Sands Real
Inc. v.
Polony,
315,
(1972)
Pa.Super.
Fox,
M & P countered stating the thirty-day limitation period for striking confessed judgment, contained in Pa.
R.C.P. makes Williams’ petition to strike the judgment untimely and thus the court should dismiss without reaching the merits.
The trial court agreed P, Mwith & and dismissed petition as untimely without inquiring into the judg- whether void, ment was finding void, Pa.R.C.P. 2959 conclusive for voidable, and judgments. affirmed, valid Superior Court acknowledging that at common law void confessed time, could be stricken at any but determining that 2959(a)(3) amendment to Rule intended to create a thirty-day time limit for petitions to open strike all judg- ments, void, voidable, whether or valid.3 that,
As the Superior
recognized
prior
at least
2959(a)(3),
amendment to Rule
valid or voidable judgments of
any kind could be struck
reopened
within a reasonable
King
time.
Athletic Goods Co. v. Redevelopment Auth. of
(“The
Philadelphia,
481 Pa.
A.2d
general rule is that if a judgment is sought to be stricken off
Saylor's
3. Justice
concurring
dissenting opinion
would have us
affirm the decision of the trial
court on the basis that the
cannot be void based on the record
Concurring
before us.
and Dissent-
ing Opinion, slip op. at 4. We decline to so rule because of the
procedural status of the case and the record that steins from it. There
Judgment
were Confessions of
Pennsylvania’s
filed. Pursuant to
Rules
Procedure,
prothonotary
of Civil
entered
on the confes-
sion. Pa.R.C.P. 2951.
hearing
There was a short
on the Petition to
Judgment,
Strike the
hearing
at which
no witnesses testified and no
documents were examined or entered into evidence. R.220-52. At the
hearing,
judge
close of the
the trial
ruled that the Petition to Strike was
documents,
Evaluating
denied. R.251.
particularly
contractual
those
evidence,
accepted
that have never
province
been
into
539,
is the
of a trial
Cook,
(1887).
court. Folsom v.
494 nature, merely which jurisdictional' not irregularity,
for an
voidable,
to strike off
the application
judgment
renders
time,
will
irregularity
or the
a reasonable
must be made within
waived.”)
Practice Ch.
Pennsylvania
(citing 7 Standard
held
be
bring-
for
(1961)).
requirement
time
The reasonable
30, § 196
a confessed
was
open
off or
an action to strike
ing
Bus.
Funds
of laches. See
the doctrine
upon
based
for
281, 287,
A.2d
925
Maraldo,
Pa.
278
Growth,
443
Inc. v.
(“the
opening
(1971)
applied
laches
be
doctrine of
long and
unreasonably
is
delay
of a
when
However,
judg-
confessed
historically void
unexplained”).
they
at
time as
opened
off or
be stricken
ments could
the court
lacked
nullity because
legal
a
considered
were
Romberger v.
the matter.
jurisdiction
matter
over
(a
(1927)
454, 457,
A.
void
Romberger,
record,
it is the
“mere blur on the
which
is a
off,
its
motion
strike
whenever
the court of its own
duty of
Clarion,
it”);
& P. R.
v. Hamil-
M.
Co.
is called to
attention
(1889) (“a
is no
ton,
1, 3,
Pa.
The instant Pennsylvania Rules amendment to from a 1996 arising including judgments, confessed dealing with Procedure Civil express created an time The amended rule with striking off opening period In of notice. upon receipt requirement triggered the timing to read: Rule 2959 amended part, pertinent Procedure Pleadings; Judgment; Striking Opening Off (a)(1) by petition. Relief shall be made pursuant petitioner upon notice is served If written 2973.1(c), shall 2956.1(c)(2) petition or Rule to Rule *6 the Unless service. after such thirty days filed within for the de- reasons compelling can demonstrate defendant denied. shall be timely not filed petition a lay, there is no This judgment; notice of the by triggered rule is change to intended this rule was mention of whether express void, and as as voidable well rule and cover the common law valid, judgments. confessed intent any as to are silent to the rule likewise
The comments rule: the common law to overturn petition file a 2959(a)(3), must a defendant Rule
Under new to obtain relief notice of the thirty days of service within thirty After execution. or to judgment prevent from there are relief unless is barred the defendant days delay.” reasons for the “compelling (1996). interpreted could This silence 2959 cmt.
Pa.R.C.P. to all is applicable limitation time mean that new voidable, void, or How- valid. judgments, whether confessed apply it cannot to believe ever, good there are reasons judgments. void one that discussed, is judgment a void previously
As It cannot become to enter. the power does not have Comm, Penland v. ex rel. of time. lapse through valid (“It certainly is 337, 341, Ashe, 19 A.2d at as no bemay regarded a true that void on its void, clearly appears all; is which every judgment and having no a court pronounced to have been own face matter.”). While subject in the authority or jurisdiction there is in a context where this question instant case raises judgment, the confessed status of as to the question serious valid, example a void, different i.e., it is voidable whether mistakenly is clear. If a confessed makes this relationship with had any never against person a who entered that that to believe holder, be absurd it would fact, merely valid in law becomes no basis judgment, with Although elapsed. thirty days given notice was because M & P is correct in asserting that providing finality to judgments worthy is a one that goal, agree we is achieved judgments valid and voidable through the 1996 amendments to we cannot provide finality to a judgment when jurisdiction court lacked over the underlying dispute. Void judgments are to be treated in the same way law, that they i.e., were treated at common time that a brought court, is to the attention of the it must Clarion, Co.; be stricken. Romberger; M. & P. R. Penland.
M P repeatedly & that the argues confessed judgments this case are not void. What M P appreciate & fails to is that that question is not before this Court. The trial court as- sumed, without that the deciding, were *7 and still relief, determined that Williams was not due any he because had failed to raise the issue within thirty days of notice receiving required by as rule 2959. Because we dis- conclusion, agree with this and determine that the confessed if void, judgments are then they may time, be at challenged any remand this we case for a determination of the status confessed judgment underlying this dispute.
Jurisdiction relinquished. joins
Justice BAER the opinion. Chief Justice CAPPY files in concurring opinion which Justice join. CASTILLE and BAER
Justice SAYLOR files a concurring dissenting opinion in joins. which Justice EAKIN CAPPY,
Chief Justice concurring. I agree the majority with that the time limit set forth in 2959(a)(3) Pa.R.C.P. No. does not to a apply petition seeking relief from a by confession that is allegedly void. This conclusion is a matter of rule construction. See Pa. 127(a), view, R.C.P. No. 101. In my the intent of this 2959(a)(3) in adopting Court No. Pa.R.C.P. to continue the long-standing distinction under the common law between void- able judgments, and void confessed and to retain the rule that petitions challenging while the former are laches, petitions doctrine of the latter challenging may brought any Romberger at time. See v. 139 A. Romberger, (1927). indicates, That is not to say, majority as the that this not the authority Court did have to extend the time 2959(a)(3) limit in No. to petitions seeking relief from a alleged confessed that is to be I void. know of no principle prevented would have this so, if that our doing had been intent. join
Justice and BAER concurring CASTILLE this opinion. SAYLOR, concurring
Justice and dissenting. I agree position with the Chief Justice’s this Court fashion a rule that elevates the interests of finality over as validity regards range at least some “void,”
that would otherwise be deemed
so long as notice and
other
process requirements
relevant due
are satisfied.
496-97,
Concurring Opinion, Op.
See
at
I believe prospectively, this Court should consider developments the law that have occurred since that appeared, doctrine first particularly as *8 such seems in overly rigid framework subordinating the inter- ests of finality validity. to See generally Hodge v. Hodge, (3d (“The Cir.1980) F.2d problem always has been one of balancing judicial concerns for finality against for those validity judgments. of Although traditional doctrine empha- sized the of importance validity, the modern trend accords substantially greater to weight finality.”); Jones v. Seymour, (“The (1983) 35 n. Pa.Super. 467 A.2d 880 n. 1 problems engendered by the rule that laches cannot run against judgment ‘void’ has been subject the of much thoughtful note commentary.... We that while there are rule, ... the the applie[d] this court cases which
recent fairly rule are old. fashioned the cases which Supreme Court the review ripe Supreme The time omitted)). (citations In appropriate.” the rule is still whether the second Restatement of notes that Appellee this regard, concept judgment” modification of the “void favors Judgments the finality and methodology emphasizing of a and adoption the circumstances. See Supplemental Appellee’s totality of 12, in indicates: particular, Brief at 5. Section in a contested judgment rendered a a court has When action, litigating the precludes parties the judgment jurisdiction in subject matter of the court’s question the (1) matter of subject if: The litigation except subsequent jurisdiction that the court’s plainly beyond action was so the of authori- a manifest abuse entertaining the action was its (2) substantial- the to stand would Allowing ty; agency another tribunal or of authority the of ly infringe rendered a court government; an informed determi- adequately to make lacking capability and as a concerning jurisdiction its own question nation of a seeking to avoid party of fairness procedural matter attack the belatedly to should have opportunity jurisdiction. subject matter court’s Judgments to this provi- § 12. The comment (Second) Rest. explains sion premise rests on the finality of principle law, in the rules of expressed the sanction of had
proceeding [jurisdictional] ques- If the jurisdiction.... subject matter is and a allowed erroneously, decided tion is lacked the fact that the court in the face of stand validity compro- of is jurisdiction, principle then the hand, remains indefi- if the the other mised. On jurisdiction, defect of then subject to attack for a nitely compromised. of is finality principle one of selecting is therefore which problem The essential Tradi- greater emphasis. is to be given principles two principle greater emphasis gave tional doctrine of tribunals limited at least validity, when *9 499 of a concerned, that a asserting jurisdiction were jurisdiction was “void” and subject matter lacking subject forever to attack.... doctrine that] traditional [included
The difficulties with finali- and validity between primacy the problem resolved not, refer to other overtly, at least in terms that did ty principles of the two that determine which might interests If the situation. specific effect in a given greater was recognized are as both validity finality principles fundamental, way choosing the sensible only then being other to be in terms of such appear them between would interests. Co., Ins.
Id., a; also Tice v. Nationwide Cmt. see Official J., 229-30, (Spaeth, A.2d Pa.Super. “the drafters of the Restatement (observing that
concurring) (Second) if requirements that the express opinion avoidance, met, to judgment may be validity are not on not, however, depending but consequence, as an automatic defect, complaining of the opportunity the nature of the defect, and on there has been challenge whether party opining develop- on judgment,” “[t]hese reliance to take the of the encourage in the should us view ments law (Second)”). Restatement sum, procedural
In the framework of rules even within to be attacked after an potentially allow invalid period apply, of the limitation that would otherwise expiration I favor procedural rulemaking likely as a matter of would validity finality only over where giving preeminence debtor, such as where equities clearly favored manifestly and it personal jurisdiction lacking would Pennsylva- himself in a require unfair to the debtor to defend nia court. not under
Finally,
Appellant may
prevail
it seems clear that
existing
Appellant
of the
rule.
any reasonable construction
be stricken off on the
that the confessed
requested
not
notes did
promissory
basis that the amendments
Defendant’s Motion to
cognovit
restate the
clauses. See
¶ 33;
20; Majority Opin-
RR.
Judgment
Confessed
Strike
*10
ion,
1-2,
at 490-93
nn.
v. POLICE, Appellant. PENNSYLVANIA STATE Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Sept. 2006. Decided Nov. notes owed & (“Williams”) (“M P”) D. by Michael Williams L.P. & Both notes. promissory amendments to those subsequent (or judgment) confession cognovit notes contained original however, amended clauses;1 subsequently notes were both Judgment 1993 note: clause from June 1. Confession