Lead Opinion
This is аn appeal from an order denying a petition to open a default judgment.
Appellee, via complaint, initiated this action in assumpsit on July 17, 1977 with service on the appellant effected the next day. Counsel for appellant, on August 1, 1977, procured an extensiоn of time to file a responsive pleading until September 1, 1977. However, on September 7, 1977, no pleading having been filed by appellant in response to the complaint, default judgment was entered in favor of the appellee. On October 6, 1977, appellant filed а petition to open the default judgment, which was answered by appellee on October 26, 1977. On November 3, 1977, the lower court denied appellant’s petition, finding that appellant had not advanced sufficient reason to excuse his failure to file an answer on time. This appeal followed.
Before the lower court can exercise its discretion and open a default judgment, the petitiоner must satisfy three criteria: (1) that the petition to open was promptly filed; (2) that a legitimate explanation exists for the default; and (3) that a defense on the merits exists. Schutte v. Valley Bargain Center,
Initially, we note that the prоcedure dictated by Pa.R.C.P. § 209 was not followed here.
The problem facing us is whether the lower court erred in holding that appellant failed to reasonably explain or offer a legitimate excuse for the delay that occasioned the default judgment. In making this determination, we are guided by the principle that the lower court decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an error of law or a clear, manifest abuse of discretion.
Apрellant’s petition alleges that he mistakenly believed a responsive pleading was to be filed after he contacted counsel and that this failure of communication between his
As this Court stated in Tice v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.,
“It is true, as claimed by appellant, that relief from a default judgment may be granted where the reason for the default is merely oversight, mistake or neglect of counsel. Balk v. Ford Motor Co.,446 Pa. 137 ,285 A.2d 128 (1971); Fox v. Mellon,438 Pa. 364 ,264 A.2d 623 (1970); Stephens v. Bartholomew,422 Pa. 311 ,220 A.2d 617 (1966); Moyer v. Americana Mobile Homes, Inc.,244 Pa. Super. 441 ,368 A.2d 802 (1976); Alexander v. Jesray Construction Co.,237 Pa.Super. 99 ,346 A.2d 566 (1975). “Errors of counsel ... or clerical errors, which indicate an оversight rather than a deliberate decision not to defend, have been held to constitute sufficient legal justification to open a default judgment.” Johnson v. Yellow Cab Co.,226 Pa.Super. 270 , 272,307 A.2d 423 , 424 (1973). But see Smith v. Tonon,231 Pa.Super. 539 ,331 A.2d 662 (1974); King v. Fayette Aviation,226 Pa.Super. 588 ,323 A.2d 286 (1974).
Recent case law, however, has established
“that mere confusion, see, Triolo v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co.,440 Pa. 164 ,270 A.2d 620 (1970), bald allegations of inadvertence of counsel, Goldstein v. Graduate Hosp., supra [441 Pa. 179 ,272 A.2d 472 (1971)]; Carrozza v. Girard Chevrolet Co.,200 Pa.Super. 502 ,190 A.2d 577 *520 (1963), mistake or inadvertence of counsel (without more), see, Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Wenzel,223 Pa.Super. 87 ,289 A.2d 759 (1972); Spilove v. Cross Transp., Inc.,223 Pa.Super. 143 ,297 A.2d 155 (1972), or demands on the time of counsel, see, Goldstein v. Graduate Hosp., supra; Walters v. Harleysville Mut Cas. Co.,417 Pa. 438 ,207 A.2d 852 (1965); Seltzer v. Ashton Hall Nursing & Convalescent Home,221 Pa.Super. 127 ,289 A.2d 207 , allocatur refused,221 Pa.Super. xliii (1972), are not patently reasonable excuses and that failure to open based upon these explanations is not аn abuse of discretion.” St. Vladimir Ukranian Ortho. Church v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co.,239 Pa.Super. 492 , 501-502,362 A.2d 1052 , 1058 (1976) (emphasis in original).”
Accepting every averment in appellant’s petition аs true, they do not establish a reasonable excuse for his failure to answer the complaint on time.
This is not a case of oversight or clerical error. See Johnson v. Yellow Cab,
In addition, both counsel and appellant were aware of the first extensiоn granted by appellee, and when they realized their “misunderstanding” would not be cleared up in time, they should have requested another extension. See Tice v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., supra.
We have reviewed thе record and conclude that the facts of this case adequately support the ruling of the court below.
Notes
. Rule 209 provides:
If, after the filing and service of the answer, the moving party does not within fifteen days:
(a) Proceed by rule or by agreement of counsel to take depositions on disputed issues of fact; or
(b) Order the cause for argument оn petition and answer (in which event all averments of fact responsive to the petition and properly pleaded in the answer shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of the rule); the respondent may take a rule as of course on the moving party tо show cause why he should not proceed as above. If after hearing the rule shall be made absolute by the court, and the petitiоner shall not proceed, as above provided, within fifteen days thereafter, the respondent may order the cause for argument on petition and answer, in which event all averments of fact responsive to the petition and properly pleaded in the аnswer shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of the rule.
. Our scope of review is distinctly delimited. “It is not enough that we would decide differently were we the court of initial jurisdiction. There must be a demonstration that the trial court applied erroneous legal principles to the factual situation presented, or that the cowl was biased or prejudiced against the defendant.” Campbell v. Heilman Homes, Inc.,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
In my estimation refusing to grant a timely petition to open a default judgment when defense counsel promptly notifies plaintiff’s counsel of his intention to defend, and only fifty days elapses following service of the complaint, is a questionable exercise of discretion at best. As we stated in Moyer v. Americana Mobile Homes, Inc.,
“The рurpose of the rules in authorizing the entry of default judgments is to prevent a dilatory defendant from impeding the plaintiff in establishing his claim. The rules аre not primarily intended to provide the plaintiff with a means of gaining a judgment without the difficulties which arise from litigation. Kraynick v. Hertz, supra [443 Pa. 105 ,277 A.2d 144 (1971)]; Slott v. Triad Distributors, Inc.,230 Pa.Super. 545 ,327 A.2d 151 (1974).”
Moreover, when the tаking of a judgment under the circumstances described above occurs without notifying defense counsel of an intention to do so, I conсlude that refusal to open the judgment constitutes a palpable abuse of discretion. See Ashton v. Ashton,
Therefore, I would reverse the order of the court below, open the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.