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).

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).

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.

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).

Appeal From a Default Dismissed Where Plaintiff Did Not First File Petition To Open or Strike Default

In the case of Cardona v. Buchanan, 2020 Pa. Super. 55 (Pa. Super. March 9, 2020 Olson, J., Nichols, J., Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the court found that where a trial court entered a judgment of non pros due to a Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute her suit and the Plaintiff thereafter failed to file a Petition to Open the Judgment before appealing, the Plaintiff waived the single issue raised on appeal. 

This matter arose out of a slip and fall incident that occurred in 2005. The Plaintiff began the lawsuit by way of a Writ of Summons in 2007. She thereafter filed a Complaint in November of 2009. 

Nine (9) years later, in November of 2018, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the action for lack of prosecution. That motion is granted and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff then filed an appeal to the Superior Court without first filing a Petition to Open the Judgment. 

On appeal, the Superior Court found that the Plaintiff waived her objection to the non pros order by failing to file a Petition to Open. The court cited to Pa. R.C.P. 3051 which provides that relief from a judgment of non pros shall be sought by way of a Petition to Strike or Open the Judgment. The court also noted that Rule 3051 mandates that a Plaintiff file the Petition to Open with the trial court before appealing to the appellate court. 

The Superior Court further noted that, since Petitions to Open Default Judgments of Non Pros are mandatory, any appeal related to a judgment of non pros should be made not from the judgment itself but rather from a denial of a Petition to Open or Strike that Judgment.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 25, 2020).

Superior Court Rules That Default Should Have Been Opened Where Defects in Service Noted

In the case of Digital Commc’n Warehouse, Inc. v. Allen Inv., LLC., 2019 Pa. Super. 341 (Pa. Super. Nov. 15, 2019) (Op. by Bender, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a trial court was obligated to grant a Petition to Open a Default Judgment where the Defendant was found to have offered a valid dispute as to the validity of service of the Complaint. The court noted that improper service would negate the trial court’s jurisdiction over the Defendant.

This matter arose out of a contract dispute. A default judgment was entered when the Defendant did not respond to the Complaint or enter an appearance.

As noted, on appeal, the court accepted the argument that the entry of a default judgment was a nullity because the trial court lacked jurisdiction given that the Plaintiff allegedly failed to properly serve the underlying Complaint.

While the court noted that the Defendant was not entitled to have the judgment stricken under a procedural rationale, the Defendant was entitled to have the judgment opened on an equitable basis for the reasons noted.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 3, 2019).

Default Judgment Opened Where Plaintiff Used Old Form Language in Pa.R.C.P. 237.5

In the case of Pennachio v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 10120 of 2017, C.A. (C.P. Lawrence Co. Aug. 6, 2019 Motto, P.J.), the court struck the entry of a default judgment against the Defendant after finding that the Plaintiff’s notice of default was fatally defective because it failed to contain the specificity required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.  

This matter arose out of a slip and fall incident at a Wal-Mart store.   After the Plaintiff obtained service and Wal-Mart never filed a responsive pleading, the Plaintiff sent an “Important Notice” as required by Pa. R.C.P. 237.5, notifying Wal-Mart that it had ten (10) days to take action or would suffer the entry of a default judgment.   When Wal-Mart did not take any action, the default judgment was filed by the Plaintiff.  

Wal-Mart responded with a Petition to Strike Default Judgment and asserted that the Plaintiff had failed to use the specific language required by Pa. R.C.P. 237.5.  

The court agreed with Wal-Mart that this was a fatal defect that required a default judgment to be stricken because the language that was used by the Plaintiff lacked the necessary specificity. The court noted that the Plaintiff utilized the language that was used in the old version of Rule 237.5 before it was amended back in 1994.  

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 3, 2019).  

Lehigh County Trial Court Refuses to Open Default Judgment

In the case of Cruz v. The Midwives & Assoc., Inc., No. 2017-C-3103 (C.P. Leh. Co. Dec. 3, 2018 Johnson, J.), the court ruled that the Defendants were not entitled to open a default judgment where their failure to timely file a responsive pleading was not excusable.   

In this matter, after the filing and service of a Writ of Summons and a Complaint, the Defendants failed to file a responsive pleading.   The Plaintiff then issued a 10-Day Notice of Intent to Enter a Default and, when the Defendant did not file any pleading, the Plaintiff entered a default judgment.  

The court noted that the Defendant did not file a Petition to Open a Default Judgment until twelve (12) days later.  

The court noted that, under Pa.R.C.P. 237.3(b)(2), if a Petition to Open a Default Judgment is filed within ten (10) days after the entry of the default judgment, the court “shall” open the judgment if the proposed Answer states a meritorious defense. 

Where, as here, a Petition to Open a Default Judgment is filed more than ten (10) days after the entry of a default judgment, the court will only exercise its discretion to open the judgment if (1) the petition has been promptly filed, (2) a meritorious defense has been shown, and (3) the failure to appear or respond can be excused.   

Here, the court found that Defendants’ Petition to Open the Judgment was promptly filed and that a meritorious defense had been stated.  

However, the court determined that the Defendants’ failure to file an Answer could be not excused under the circumstances presented.   Here, the Defendant admitted that they were aware that they were not covered by insurance at the time of the subject incident such that the Defendant knew that no insurance company would provide it with an attorney.   The court also noted that the Defendant did not take any action even after receiving the 10-Day Notice.   It was indicated that the Defendants only sought out legal counsel after the default was entered.  

As such, the court found that the circumstances of this case did not amount to any mere oversight or an unintentional omission to act.   Rather, the Defendants were found to have received multiple notices informing them of their obligation to participate in the case and the consequences for failing to do so.  Despite these notices, the Defendants did not act or file an Answer to the Complaint.  

As there was no reasonable excuse or explanation provided by the Defendants for failing to respond to the Complaint, the court denied the Defendants’ Petition to Open the Default Judgment.  

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 26, 2019).  

Default Judgment Opened in Monroe County Where Elements for Relief Met

In his recent decision in the case of Brozzetti v. Liz, No. 3621-Civil-2017 (C.P. Monroe Co. Mar. 9, 2018 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted certain Defendants’ Petition to Open a Default Judgment. 

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a motor vehicle accident.   The Plaintiff filed suit against an alleged DUI Defendant driver and various entities under a Dram Shop Act action.

The Opinion notes that the Complaint was served on the Dram Shop Defendants and, due to their failure to respond, a default judgment was eventually entered against those Defendants.  

In ruling on the Petition to Open the Default Judgment, the court noted that such a judgment may be opened by the court when the petitioning party can show that they have (1) promptly filed a Petition to Open a Default Judgment, (2) provided a reasonable excuse or explanation for failing to file a responsive pleading, and (3) pleaded a meritorious defense to the allegations contained in the Complaint.   See Op. at p. 4 [citations omitted].  

In this matter, the issue of prompt filing and the excuse for not having filed a responsive pleading were noted by the court to be closely intertwined. 

The Dram Shop Defendants asserted that, when they were served with the Complaint, the documents were provided to their long time insurance agent, and the Dram Shop Defendants were assured that the matter was being handled.   

However, it appears that the agent never provided the information to the insurance carrier and other evidence was provided to show that the insurance agent had sold his business, and may have spent time in hospital during the time in question, and may have otherwise lost his ability to operate as a licensed insurance agent.   

The court confirmed that the record indicated that once the problems were discovered, prompt steps were taken by the Defendant to secure counsel and to have a Petition to Open the Default Judgment filed.  

Judge Williamson compared the facts before him as being similar to those cases where the courts have excused the neglect of counsel that results in the entry of default judgment through no fault of the defendants themselves.   Judge Williamson felt that the same could be said in terms of reliance upon a representation by the insurance agent that the claim and the matter were being handled.   

Overall, Judge Williamson felt that the Dram Shop Defendants had acted in a timely manner once they became aware that no insurance claim had been transmitted by their insurance agent.   The court noted that, thereafter, in a span of approximately only 17 days, a claim was then opened, an attorney was assigned, that attorney reviewed the file and entered his appearance, and filed the Petition to Open and an Answer to the Complaint.  

Under these circumstances, the court felt that the Dram Shop Defendants had provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to file a responsive pleading, i.e., that they were unaware that their insurance agent had failed to transmit the claim to the carrier for a defense in light of the agent's assurances otherwise.  

On the final element, the court found that the Dram Shop Defendants had presented meritorious defenses to the claims provided.  

Based upon the above, the court found that the Defendants had met their burden in support of their Petition to Open the Default Judgment.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion online may click this LINK.

Pennsylvania Defendant's Signing of Green Card Receipt of Complaint By Mail Does Not Negate Improper Service of Original Process

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

 

In his recent decision in the case of Brown v. Vito, No. 2014-CV-5768 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 26, 2016 Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas granted a Petition to Strike a Default Judgment in a civil litigation matter.  

 

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff secured a default judgment against the Defendant in a partnership dispute case where the Plaintiff had alleged a breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, partnership oppression, and a request for account in escrow.   The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant failed to file a timely answer to the Complaint.   The judgement was entered by the Plaintiff in the amount of $200,000.00.  

 

The Defendant filed a Petition to Strike the default judgment along with a request for an emergency temporary stay of the Plaintiff’s attorney's plan to execute on the judgment. 

 

In his decision, the court reviewed the well-settled standard of review for a Petition to Strike a Default Judgment.   Concisely, under that standard of review, a Petition to Strike a Default Judgment may be granted only where a fatal defect or irregularity is apparent on the face of the record.  

 

After reviewing the record before the court in this matter, Judge Minora found that the Plaintiff failed to follow the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to service of original process which, in this matter, was the Complaint.  

 

Here, the Plaintiff produced a certified mail receipt with the Defendant’s signature in an effort to show that service was properly made under the Rules.   However, Judge Minora noted that, “[e]ven if  Defendant signed for and received Plaintiff’s Complaint, that does not necessarily make service proper under the Rules.”  

 

Judge Minora noted that Pa. R.C.P. 403 permits original process to be served by mail if a Rule of Civil Procedure authorizes so under certain limited exceptions.   Otherwise, the general rule, under Pa.R.C.P. 400, is that original service has to be served by a Sheriff.  

 

Since the court found that it did not appear that any Rule of Civil Procedure permitted original service to be served by mail in this matter, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure.  Accordingly, the court found a fatal defect in the record that supported a striking of the default judgment.  

 

The court also went on to note additional defects with respect to the Plaintiff’s non-compliance with Pa. R.C.P. 237.1 pertaining to the mandated steps to properly request the entry of a default judgment.   The court found that these defects were fatal defects that likewise supported striking the entry of the default judgment.  

 

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.