Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Refusal to Open a Default Judgment Against a Defendant

In the case of Kitner’s Lawn & Landscaping, LLC v. LRM Masonry, LLC, No. 699 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. March 24, 2026 Panella, P.J.E., King, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by Lane, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a Defendant’s Petition to Open a Default Judgment.

According to the Opinion, there was a contract between the parties under which it was agreed that the Plaintiff landscaping business would provide services as a subcontractor to the Defendant masonry company.

After a dispute arose between the parties, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking payment for services rendered. The Writ of Summons was personally served on the owner of the Defendant, who accepted service.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint and served the Defendant by mail. The mailing was not returned.

The trial court later entered a default judgment against the Defendant for failing to file an Answer to the Complaint.

Sixty-seven days after the entry of the default judgment, the Defendant filed a Petition to Open the Judgment. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was aware that the Defendant’s principal place of business was at the Defendant’s home and not another address at which the ten day notice of intent to enter a default was sent and.  The Defendant also noted that the mailing of the ten day notice was filed of record with the court and was marked as “undeliverable.”

The appellate court agreed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and refusing to open the default judgment. The appellate court emphasized that the Defendant had no official address filed with the Department of State in Pennsylvania. It was additionally noted that the sheriff had successfully served original process, which was the Writ of Summons, on the Defendant.

The appellate court also noted that the Plaintiff sent the Complaint, the Notice of the Default Judgment, and other filings to the same address that was on the Writ of Summons. That address was noted to also appear on the Defendant’s website. Accordingly, the appellate court found that the Plaintiff had met the service requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellate court also agreed that the Defendant did not establish a reasonable excuse for failing to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint.

The court otherwise noted that it saw no fatal defect on the record to support any separate Motion to Strike.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 7, 2026).

Trial Court Judge Orders Opening of a Snap Default Judgment

In the case of Susquehanna Legal Aid For Adults & Youth v. Winkleman, No. CV-2024-01041 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Sept. 23, 2025 Carlucci, J.), Judge William P. Carlucci of the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas granted a Plaintiff’s Petition to Open a Defendant’s default judgment filed relative to the Defendant’s counterclaim where the court found that the Defendants had entered a “snap” default judgment.

In ruling upon the Plaintiff’s Petition to Open and/or Strike the default judgment, the court reviewed the standard of review which required the court to determine (1) whether the default was excusable; (2) whether the parties seeking to open the judgment has shown a meritorious defense or claim, and (3) whether the Petition to Open has been promptly filed.

The court also noted that it “sincerely believe[d]” that the Rules of Civil Procedure are not intended to become a “bag of tricks.” See Op. at 5. 

In so noting, the court also referred to Pa. R.C.P. 126 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure that requires the rules to be liberally applied to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. Judge Carlucci noted that, under that rule, a court is, at every stage of the action, permitted to disregard any error or defect of procedure that does not affect the substantive rights of the parties.

Judge William P. Carlucci
Lycoming County 

Judge Carlucci additionally noted that it is the well-settled law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that “snap judgments” are heavily disfavored.

According to the record before the court in this case, forty-one (41) minutes after the Defendants electronically filed their default judgment on their counterclaim against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had electronically filed their Preliminary Objections to the Defendants’ counterclaim.

Judge Carlucci noted that, had counsel for the Defendants made any effort to contact counsel for the Plaintiff before taking the default judgment, counsel for the Defendant would have learned that a responsive pleading was only minutes away from being filed.

Based upon the record before the court, the court found that the Petition to Open or Strike was promptly filed and was worthy of being granted. As such, the court opened the default judgment and directed the Plaintiff to file its responsive pleading.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Nov. 6, 2025).

Court Refuses to Open Non Pros Judgment Where Plaintiff Repeatedly Failed To Abide By Court's Orders

In the case of Harrison v. Pinnacle Exteriors, No. 6493-CV-2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 21, 2025 Zulick, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Open a Judgment of Non Pros.

The court denied the Plaintiff’s Petition, holding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to relief where the Plaintiff failed to comply with certain Court Orders.

More specifically, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court Order to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff also failed to comply with another Order requiring the Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed due to failure to prosecute the claim.

The court noted that the resulting three (3) months of delay in the proceedings caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to act supported the denial of the Petition to Open the Non Pros Judgment.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 5, 2025).

 

Superior Court Rules that Default Judgment Against Defendant Should Have Been Opened

In the case of Lines v. Timothy Britton Const. Servs., Inc., No. 948 W.D.A. 2024 (Pa. Super. July 1, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the proper procedure relative to a Petition to Strike and/or Open a Default Judgment. In the end, the court reversed a trial court’s Order dismissing a Defendant’s Petition to Strike and/or Open a Default Judgment.

This matter arose out of a lawsuit brought by a homeowner against the Defendant for breach of contract and violation of consumer protection law claims.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s Complaint did not contain a required Notice to Defend. When the Defendant made no response, the Plaintiffs ultimately obtained a default judgment. The Defendant then petitioned to strike and/or open the judgment based upon the deficiencies with the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

With the parties’ consent, the trial court struck the initial default judgment and granted the Defendant leave to file a responsive pleading. Thereafter, the Defendant failed to file a pleading and the Plaintiffs again secured a default judgment. The Defendant then petitioned to strike and/or open the second default judgment due to the Plaintiff’s failure to provide the notice required under Pa. R.C.P. 237.1.

The Plaintiffs argued that, given that they had previously provided their Rule 237.1 notice before the entry of the first default judgment, no new notice was required. 

 The trial court dismissed the Defendant’s Petition to Strike and/or Open and the Defendant then appealed.

The Superior Court held that the trial court erred in entering a second default judgment against the Defendant where notice pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.1 was missing. The appellate court ruled that the initial Rule 237.1 notice was not still in place by the time the second default judgment was entered. 

The appellate court also noted that the trial court’s extension of time to answer, which was issued after the entry of the initial default judgment, also did not comport with the requirements set forth under Pa. R.C.P. 237.6.

The appellate court otherwise also noted that the trial court’s agreed extension Order did not state that a failure to timely respond could result in another default judgment. As such, the appellate court ruled that, absent compliance with Rule 237.6, a default judgment could not be entered absent a new 10-Day Notice as required under Rule 237.1.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 16, 2025).

Trial Court Requests Appellate Court To Affirm Denial of Petition For Relief From Entry of Judgment of Non Pros

In the case of Dennis v. E&I Ventures, LLC, May Term 2024, No. 2811 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 22, 2025 Coyle, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion addressed to the Commonwealth Court requesting that the appellate court affirm the trial court’s denial of the Petition for Relief from Judgment of Non Pros that had been entered against the Plaintiff.

This matter arose out of claims related to alleged personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff during her prior tenancy in a property allegedly under the control of one or more of the Defendants that were sued.

After the Plaintiff did not move the action forward, one of the Defendants secured an entry of judgment non pros by default.

According to the Opinion, the trial court held that its Order should be affirmed where the Plaintiff’s petition was untimely, lacked the required signature of the Plaintiff as the petitioning party, failed to state a meritorious claim, and resulted in unnecessary and prejudicial delay to the Defendants.

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

Source:  "The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert," www.law.com (June 11, 2025).

Petition To Open Default Judgment Denied

In the case of Grit Drexel, LLC v. Crescent Abstract, LLC, April Term, 2023, No. 01466 (C.P. Phila. Co April 12, 2024 Patrick, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion indicating that its Order granting a default judgment in favor of the Plaintiff property owner against a title company should be affirmed.

The court noted that the Defendant failed to timely file a Petition to Open a Default Judgment. According to the record, the Defendant waited 77 days to file the Petition, which the court found to be untimely.

The court also noted that the Defendant failed to plead a meritorious defense. The Defendant was also found to have failed to demonstrate any legitimate excuse for its failure to appear prior to the filing of the entry of a default judgment.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” Law.com (Aug. 22, 2024).

Petition to Open Default Denied Where Defendant Failed To Present Valid Excuse For Failure to Answer

In the case of PPL Electric Utilities Corp. v. EAN Holdings, LLC, No. 3806-CV-2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 30, 2024 Zulick, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Petition to Open a Default Judgment.

The court denied the motion after holding that the Defendant failed to establish excusable negligence for its failure to timely answer the Plaintiff’s Complaint where the Defendant claimed only that it suffered difficulties in forwarding the service of process that was completed to Pennsylvania counsel after the Defendant was served out of state.

The court additionally rejected the Defendant’s challenge regarding the 10-Day Notice that the Plaintiff sent. The Defendant complained that no 10-Day Notice was filed of record with the court before the Plaintiff had the Praecipe for Default entered on the docket.

Judge Arthur L. Zulick
Monroe County 

However, Judge Zulick noted that Pa. R.C.P. 237.1 did not require Plaintiff to file anything of record when it sent the 10-Day Notice of Intent to Enter a Default Judgment. Rather, the Rule only required the Plaintiff to certify within the Praecipe to enter a default judgment that a 10-Day Notice had been sent.  The record before the Court confirmed that the Plantiff had followed this required procedure.

Based on these reasons, the court denied the Defendant’s Petition to Open a Default Judgment.

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

Source: The Legal Intelligencer Court of Common Pleas Case Alert at www.law.com
(July 10, 2024).

Court Addresses Proper Method of Serving Out-of-State Defendants

In the case of Morgan v. Compton, No. CV-22-01100 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Carlucci, J.), the court found that a pro se Defendant satisfied the three prongs required to open a default judgment entered against him on a Plaintiff’s Complaint for personal injuries.

According to the Complaint, the parties were formerly in a romantic relationship. With regards to that relationship, the Plaintiff filed a three (3) Count Complaint alleging various personal injury allegations against the Defendant, who resided in California.

The court confirmed that the Plaintiff mailed the Complaint to the Defendant by certified mail but the certified mail was returned marked “unclaimed.”

The Plaintiff then mailed the Complaint to the Defendant by regular mail, which was not returned.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff mailed the Defendant a Notice of Intention to take a Default Judgment by first class mail and certified mail. The certified mail envelope was returned as unclaimed.

No responsive pleading was filed by the Defendant thereafter. A default judgment was then entered.

When the Plaintiff requested a trial on damages, the Defendant attended a conference by telephone and advised the court that he intended to defend the case.

Thereafter, the Defendant filed a Petition to Open the Default Judgment and the court held a hearing by Zoom. The Defendant claimed that he mailed a written response to the Complaint but that filing did not appear in the court file.

Judge Carlucci ruled that Pa. R.C.P. 4003 and 4004 governed service by mail on out-of-state parties. Under those Rules, if service by mail is returned as unclaimed, then the Plaintiff must make service by another means that does not include ordinary mail.

The court found that, at the time the default judgment was entered, the court lacked jurisdiction over the Defendant due to a lack of any completion of service of process.

The court also found that the Defendant had promptly filed a Petition to Open a Default Judgment, had explained the reasons for the delay due to the improper service, and had alleged not only a defense of improper service under Rule 403 but had also denied the allegations in the Complaint.

As such, the court granted the Defendant’s Petition to Open the Default Judgment and the ordered the Defendant to file an Answer within twenty (20) days.

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


Source: Law.com, “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” (May 22, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Abstrakt XXcelence studios on www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Denial of Defendant's Petition to Open a Default Judgment

In the case of Jacks Auto Parts Sales, Inc. v. MJ Auto Body and Repair, LLC, No. 1946 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Oct. 30, 2023 Olson, J., Nichols, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Nichols, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s Order denying a Defendant’s Petition to Open a Default Judgment.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court had properly denied the Motion to Open a Default Judgment where the moving party failed to show evidence establishing that the person who accepted service of process at the moving party’s place business was not an employee or agent authorized to accept service.

The court further found that the Defendants had failed to present evidence showing that opening the default judgment was equitably justified. More specifically, the court noted that there was no evidence provided regarding what happened to the alleged service of process documentation after it was received at the Defendant’s place of business. 

Accordingly, the court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining an open default judgment due to the Defendants’ untimeliness in filing their Motion to Open the Default Judgment.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 21, 2023).

BEWARE: Petition To Open Judgment Non Pros Must Be Filed Before Any Appeal To Preserve Issues

Oops!

In the case of Reilly v. Bristol Twp., No. 2019-08757 (C.P. Bucks Co. June 30, 2023 Corr, J.), the trial court judge issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in which he requested the Superior Court to dismiss a Plaintiff’s appeal of a civil litigation which a non pros default judgment was entered against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff failed to preserve any issues for appeal when he filed an appeal from the entry of the judgment of non pros rather than filing a Petition to Open and/or Strike the Default Judgment under Pa. R.C.P. 3051.

According to the Opinion, a Plaintiff police officer sued the Defendant township regarding various employment issues.

During the course of the litigation, the trial court granted a Defendant’s request for the entry of judgment of non pros due to the Plaintiff’s failure to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude.

The Plaintiff then filed an appeal.

The trial court held that the Plaintiff’s appeal had to be dismissed given that the Plaintiff failed to file a Petition for Relief from the judgment of non pros under Pa. R.C.P. 3051. 

According to the trial court, that Rule, and case law construing that Rule, directly addresses the means of obtaining relief from an entry of a judgment of non pros. The Court noted that, according to the Explanatory Note of the Rule, a Plaintiff must file a Petition for relief from the judgment of non pros to the trial court rather than filing an appeal to the appellate court. 

The trial court ruled that, where the Plaintiff erroneously filed an appeal, the Plaintiff failed to preserve any of the issues regarding the entry of the judgment. As such, the trial court requested the Superior Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 1, 2023).

Defendant's Petition To Open Default Judgment Was Too Late

In the case of Locklear v. Pocono Luxury Inc., No. 3142-CV-2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. May 8, 2023 Zulick, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Petition to Open a Default Judgment because the Defendant’s Petition was untimely.

This case arose out of a lawsuit filed by a Plaintiff against a Defendant home improvement company.

The court noted that, in order to open the default judgment, the Defendant was required to show a prompt filing of its Petition, a reasonable explanation for the default, and a meritorious defense.

In this case, the Defendant waited over a year after the default judgment was entered before filing a Petition to Open the Default Judgment. 

The court noted that various court documents and Orders were previously served on the Defendant prior to the filing of the Petition. No explanation was provided to the court why the Defendant did not seek legal representation or otherwise act during the time even before the Complaint was filed.

Judge Zulick noted that the prompt filing of a Petition to Open a Default Judgment typically refers to a period of less than one (1) month. The court noted that delays exceeding that time frame have been deemed to be untimely in other cases.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 20, 2023).

Default Judgment Worth $1 Million Dollars Opened Due to Fatal Defects in the Record

In the case of Grady v. Nelson, No. 2115 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Oct. 21, 2022 Stabile, J., Dubow, J., and Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court Order in which the trial court denied a Defendant’s Petition to Strike or Open a Default Judgment.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a Sheriff’s Return of Service indicating the non-existence of an address was conclusive on its face to render a Petition to Strike or Open Default Judgment meritorious as it was apparent from the record that the Defendant had not been afforded notice of the proceedings.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a shooting incident on premises owned by the Defendant. The court noted that a default judgment was entered against the Defendant in the amount of $1 million dollars.

The Superior Court opened the judgment after finding two (2) fatal defects that existed on the face of the record. One, the court found that there was conclusive evidence that the Plaintiff had served the Complaint and the judgment notices on a non-existent address, thereby depriving the Defendant of notice that this action was pending against him.

Also, the court found that the Plaintiff’s 10-Day Notice of Intent to Enter a Default Judgment did not substantially comply with the language required under Pa. R.C.P. 237.5 and 237.1.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 15, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Ekaterina Bolovtsova on www.pexels.com.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Addresses Standard of Review For Opening of Judgment Non Pros (Non-Precedential)

In the case of Mark v. McCarthy, No. 991 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. June 8, 2022 Dubow, J., McLaughlin, J., and King, J.) (Mem Op. by Dubow, J.) (non-precedential), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court’s denial of a Defendant’s Motion to Open a Judgment of Non Pros after finding that the trial court’s reasoning that the Plaintiff’s estate failed to act with diligence was untenable in a case where the the trial court based its decision, in part, on the grounds that the estate did not make Rules absolute within two (2) days. 

In this case, it appeared that the Plaintiff needed pre-Complaint discovery to survive a demurrer and filed multiple motions in an attempt to avoid entry of a judgment of non pros.

According to the Opinion, the estate argued, in part, that because the Defendant had concealed assets of the estate, the estate could not file a Complaint without first conducting pre-Complaint discovery.

In this non-precedential decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court provided a nice update on the Rules applicable to the entry of judgment non pros and efforts to open the same.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Elizabeth Anderson of Anderson Law Office in Hawley, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

Superior Court Rules that Trial Court Should Have Stricken Default Judgment Entered Against Defendant

In the case of Penn National Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Phillips, No. 1480 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. May 17, 2022 Stabile, J., King, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court’s denial of a Defendant’s Petition to Strike or Open a Default Judgment entered against him.

This case arose out of an insurance company’s subrogation action for property damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff carrier filed a Complaint against a Defendant and asserted that the Defendant lived at an address in North Carolina.

The carrier filed an Affidavit of Service by mail and sought a default judgment when the Defendant did not respond. The default judgment was entered.

Thereafter, when counsel for the Defendant entered an appearance and filed a Petition to Strike or Open the Default Judgment, that Petition was denied by the trial court.

The Superior Court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s Petition to Strike the Default Judgment because the 10-Day Notice was defective on its face and violated Pa. R.C.P. 237.1(a)(2). More specifically, the court noted that the Plaintiff failed to attach to the Praecipe to Enter Judgment either the 10-Day Notice or a certification that they sent written notice of their intention to file a Praecipe for Default Judgment.

The Superior Court also agreed with the Defendant’s argument that the language in the Plaintiff’s 10-Day Notice was also defective in that it did not substanially comply with Rule 237.5.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 31, 2022).

 

Pennsylvania Superior Court Upholds Trial Court's Denial of a Defendant's Petition to Open a Default Judgment After Entry of $23 Million Dollar Verdict

In the case of Roy v. Rue, No. 1598 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. April 12, 2022 Lazarus, J., Kunselman, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s denial of a Defendant’s Petition to Open and Strike a Default Judgment entered against him by the Plaintiff.

This lawsuit arose out of a fight that occurred at a restaurant that resulted in eventually fatal injuries to the Plaintiff’s decedent. The Plaintiff filed suit against a restaurant and the assailant. The issues in this case pertain to the entry of a default judgment against the assailant.

The restaurant defendant settled out of the case.    

The case eventually went to trial on damages and a verdict was entered against the assailant in an amount in excess of $23 million dollars.

Thereafter, the assailant filed a Petition to Open the Default Judgment. The assailant asserted that he was incarcerated when the trial court held the assessment of damages trial and that he did not appear because he allegedly did not have notice of the trial. The court noted that the docket confirmed that the Prothonotary provided notice to the Defendant of the trial at the Defendant’s home address, at which time the Defendant was in prison.

The Defendant additionally asserted that he was not provided with service of the original process. 

The Defendant also argued that he acted promptly once he learned of the default judgment and that he allegedly had a meritorious defense to the claims in the lawsuit, that being that the Defendant allegedly acted in self-defense.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court properly denied the Defendant’s Petition to Open or Strike the Default Judgment where the Defendant failed to show any defects with regards to the return of service of the Complaint, with regards to the 10-Day Notice of Intent to File a Default Judgment, or with respect to the Notice regarding the trial date on the assessment of damages. 

The court additionally found that the Defendant’s Petition was not timely filed.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 26, 2022).

Court Rejects Defendants Petition to Open Default Judgment

In the case of Hackett v. Home Solutions Group, LLC, No. 190202344 (C.P. Phila. Co. July 13, 2021 Foglietta, J.), the court denied the Defendant’s Petition to Open and/or Strike a Default Judgment after finding that the Defendant failed to timely respond to the Plaintiff’s Complaint after receiving proper service of the same.

This matter arose out of claims by a Plaintiff-property owner who asserted that a Defendant developer trespassed and encroached upon her property during the Defendants’ construction activities on adjacent properties.

A central issue in this case was whether service of the Plaintiff’s Complaint was proper. After reviewing the record, the court found that service was indeed proper.

Applying the 3-prong test for the opening of a default judgment, the court noted that the Defendant would have to show that (1) the Petition to Open the Judgement was promptly filed, (2) that the Defendant had a meritorious defense, and (3) that there was a reasonable excuse for the Defendant’s failure to answer the Plaintiff’s Complaint in a timely fashion.

The court reiterated that the Plaintiff had made proper service. The court also found that the Defendants could not meet the third prong of the test in that they did not have a reasonable excuse failing to file an Answer for over twenty-one (21) months.

The court found no basis for the opening of the default judgment and the Defendants’ Petition was dismissed.  The trial court issued this Rule 1925 Opinion requesting that the Superior Court affirm its decision.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 28, 2021).

Source of Image:  Photo by Tingley Injury on Unsplash.com.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Trial Court's Opening of Default Judgment

In the case of Rivers End Animal Sanctuary and Learning Center, Inc. v. Eckhardt, No. 1848-CV-2019 (Pa. Super. May 7, 2021) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a trial court erred in opening a default judgment where the Defendant failed to establish a meritorious defense and violated Rule 237.3 by failing to attach Preliminary Objections or an Answer and New Matter to the Defendant’s Petition to Open a Default Judgment.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a dispute over the ownership of a number of horses.

After suit was filed by way of a declaratory judgment action to determine the rights and ownership over the horses, a default judgment was entered against the Defendant for failing to respond.

The Defendant filed a Petition to Open the Default Judgment ten (10) days later. The trial court opened the default and allowed the case to proceed.

On appeal, the appellate court agreed with the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant had failed to establish a meritorious defense given that the Defendant had merely stated boilerplate language in identifying a defense or defenses in its Petition to Open the Default.

The appellate court also found that the trial court had misapplied Rule 237.3(a) by overlooking the Defendant’s failure to attach Preliminary Objections or an Answer and New Matter to the Petition to Open a Default Judgment.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 25, 2021).

Default Judgment Opened in Monroe County

In the case of Yasdiman v. Watson, No. 3652-CV-2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. Oct. 13, 2020 Williamson, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Petition to Open a Default Judgment.

The court reviewed the general requirements of the opening of a default judgment which included a timely filed petition, a reasonable explanation or excuse for the delay that resulted in the entry of a default judgment, and the presentation of a responsive pleading setting forth a meritorious defense.

The court emphasized that, under Pa. R.C.P. 237.3(a)(2), there is no need to meet the first two (2) requirements if the Petition to Open was filed within the first ten (10) days after the entry of the judgment.

In this matter, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for a Default Judgment on March 9, 2020. However, the Prothonotary did not enter the judgment and mail notice to the parties until March 13, 2020. 

The Defendants filed the Answer and New Matter on March 12, 2020, which would have been the day before the Prothonotary entered the judgment on the docket and mailed out a notice of the same to the parties.

The Defendants filed a Petition to Strike or Open the Judgment on March 23, 2020, which would have been the tenth day after the Prothonotary had entered the judgment on the docket and mailed out the notices to the parties, but would have been more than ten (10) days after the date the Plaintiff actually filed the Praecipe for Default Judgment.

The court noted that the Defendant’s Petition to Open or Strike was filed on the tenth day filing the entry of default judgment. As such, the court applied Pa. R.C.P. 237.3(a)(2) and held that the Defendants only had to provide a responsive pleading with the meritorious defense to open the judgment. The court reviewed the Answer and New Matter that was filed and noted several possible defenses, including assumption of the risk, lack of causation, and the statute of limitations. As the court found that the Defendants’ pleading was sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule, the Motion to Open was granted.

Judge Williamson went on to note that, even if the judgment was deemed to be filed on March 9, 2020, the court found that the Defendant still met all three (3) elements of the requirements to support the opening of a default judgment.

Since the Petition to Open was granted, the court did not address whether the judgment should be stricken as was also requested by the defense.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 24, 2020).

Petition to Open Default Judgment Against a Defendant Denied

In the case of Hardy v. Best Buy, No. 961- Civil - 2019  (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 5, 2020 Williamson, J.), the court denied a Motion to Open a Default Judgment because the Defendant did not file its Motion in a timely fashion and also failed to demonstrate a good cause for the late filing of its Answer to the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of issues surrounding the Plaintiff’s purchase of a washing machine from the Defendant’s website in October of 2018. When the produce arrived at the Plaintiff’s home, it was discovered that the machine was damaged. The Defendant later informed the Plaintiff that the washer had been back ordered and, therefore, a new delivery date was delayed. 

When a new washer arrived, the Plaintiff discovered that this washer was damaged in the same manner of the previous one. The Plaintiffs contacted the Defendant and demanded the delivery of a washer within one (1) week. The Defendant failed to comply. 

The Plaintiffs then filed suit. 

The defense initially responded with Preliminary Objections and the court in addressing those objections required the Defendant to file an Answer within twenty (20) days. 

The Defendants filed an Answer with a New Matter in October of 2019. The Defendant then filed a Motion on February 12, 2020 seeking to open the default judgment. The defense asserted that it did not receive the default notice in a timely fashion as it was sent to the corporate office of the Defendant instead of to its legal counsel. 

The court rejected the defense position and found that the Defendants failed to meet the timeliness requirement. The court noted that the Defendant had notice of the default judgment for over a month before it field its Motion to Open. The court also noted that the defense failed to show good cause for the untimely filing of the Answer and New Matter. 

As such, the Motion to Open the Default Judgment was denied.


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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 22, 2020).

Standard of Review to Open a Default Judgment Reviewed by Superior Court

In the case of Scalla v. KWS, Inc., 2020 Pa. Super. 191(Pa. Super. Aug. 11, 2020 Lazarus, J., Bender, P.J.E., Strassburger, J.) (Op. by Lazarus, J.)(Concurring Op. by Strassburger, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the standard of review with respect to a Defendant’s efforts to open a default judgment.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant was hit with a default judgment in this products liability action. The Defendant’s registered agent received service and signed for it, but never opened the delivery. That agent also later did the same thing with the notice of the intent to take a default judgment.

The Defendant’s first response to the default was an invalid attempt to remove the case to federal court, not an effort to open the default judgment in the state court. The court noted that no Petition to Open the Default Judgment was filed until over 300 days after the Notice of Default was presented.

Moreover, when a Petition to Open was finally filed, it was unverified in violation of Pa. R.C.P. 206.3.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the Defendant’s Petition to Open was properly denied as untimely.

The appellate court additionally agreed with the trial court that the boilerplate allegations in the Defendant’s proposed Answer to the Complaint did not establish, in the required precise, specific, and clear terms, a meritorious defense.

As such, the denial of the Petition to Open a Default Judgment by the trial court was affirmed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Judge Strassburger's Concurring Decision can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.