If A Defendant Fails to Appear For Trial, A Plaintiff Still Must Prove Case

In the case of Zappacosta v. McAvoy, No. 2024 Pa. Super. 225 (Pa. Super. Sept. 27, 2024 Panella, P.J.E., Beck, J., Colins, J.) (Op. by Colins, J.), the court addressed the entry of a default judgment against a Defendant in a breach of contract case, which default was entered due to the Defendant’s failure to appear at trial.

On appeal, the court noted that the trial court had erred in denying a motion by the Defendant to strike a default judgment.

In so ruling, the Superior Court reviewed the parameters of Pa.R.C.P. 218 which covers the actions a trial court may take if a party fails to appear at trial without a satisfactory excuse.   

The court noted that, since Pa. R.C.P. 218 did not permit a trial court to enter a judgment for failure of a Defendant to appear without requiring the Plaintiff to prove the Plaintiff’s case, it was an error of the trial court to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Default Judgment that was entered due to the Defendant’s failure to appear.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges, Pennsylvania Bar News (Oct. 21, 2024).