Opinion
J-A31031-15 No. 313 MDA 2015
01-08-2016
K & S JOINT VENTURES, Appellee v. OPC MINING COMPANY AND DANIEL W. STEES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF OPC MINING COMPANY, Appellants
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Civil Division at No.: 2011-SU-4459-40 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellants, OPC Mining Co. and Daniel W. Stees, appeal from the trial court's order denying their petition to strike or open the confessed judgment filed against them by Appellee, K & S Joint Ventures. We affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
We take the following facts from our independent review of the record and the trial court's March 25, 2015 opinion. Appellant Stees is the president of Appellant OPC. On September 18, 2000, Appellee and Appellant OPC entered into a commercial lease agreement. The same day, Appellee and Appellant Stees entered into a guaranty agreement. The guaranty provides, in pertinent part, that Appellant Stees is liable to Appellee for "any amounts unpaid . . . as a result of loss (reasonalbe [sic] wear and tear excepted)[,] damages[,] or unlawful taking of any equipment [and] any unpaid obligations of [OPC] as a result of alterations, improvements[,] or additions to the premises . . . ." (Guaranty, 9/18/2000, at unnumbered page 1 ¶ 1). On October 14, 2011, Appellee filed a complaint in confession of judgment against Appellants on the bases that Appellant OPC failed to maintain and repair equipment, failed to leave replaced equipment on the premises after the termination of the lease, and removed a fixture from the property. ( See Complaint in Confession of Judgment, 10/14/11, at 2-3 ¶ 9). The complaint confessed judgment in the amount of $95,694.20, which included principal, interest, and attorney's fees. ( See id. at 4 ¶ 11).
On November 15, 2011, Appellants filed a petition to strike or open the confessed judgment alleging that judgment was entered on a defective basis. They specifically claimed that the guaranty does not contain Appellant Stees' signature, and that, even if it did, that the damages alleged in the complaint exceed those actually sustained by Appellee. They further asserted that the guaranty does not cover amounts that were paid by third parties.
On February 9, 2015, after argument, the submission of briefs, and the completion of discovery, the court denied the petition to strike or open the judgment. Appellants timely appealed.
Appellants filed a timely statement of errors complained of on appeal on March 2, 2015 pursuant to the court's order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The court filed an opinion on March 25, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Appellants raise two questions for our review:
I. Did the trial court err in failing to strike the confessed judgment for fatal defects or irregularities appearing on the record?(Appellants' Brief, at 4) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
II. Did the trial court err in failing to open the confessed judgment where the petition was timely filed and set forth allegations of a meritorious defense?
Appellants' issues challenge the trial court's denial of their petition to open or strike the confession of judgment. Our standard review of this matter is well-settled.
We review a trial court's order denying a petition to strike a confessed judgment to determine whether the record is sufficient to sustain the judgment. A petition to strike a judgment may be granted only if a fatal defect or irregularity appears on the face of the record. Similarly, we review [an] order denying [an] [a]ppellant's petition to open [a] confessed judgment for an abuse of discretion.
* * *
In considering the merits of a petition to strike, the court will be limited to a review of only the record as filed by the party in whose favor the warrant is given, i.e., the complaint and the documents which contain confession of judgment clauses.
Matters dehors the record filed by the party in whose favor the warrant is given will not be considered. If the record is self-sustaining, the judgment will not be stricken. However, if the truth of the factual averments contained in such record are disputed, then the remedy is by a proceeding to open the judgment and not to strike. An order of the court striking a judgment annuls the original judgment and the parties are left as if no judgment had been entered. . . . When determining a petition to open a judgment, matters dehors the record filed by the party in whose favor the warrant is given, i.e., testimony, depositions, admissions, and other evidence, may be considered by the court.Graystone Bank v. Grove Estates , L.P., 58 A.3d 1277, 1281-82 (Pa. Super. 2012), affirmed, 81 A.3d 880 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Appellants have raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 3/25/15, at unnumbered pages 4-19) (finding: (1) petition to strike properly denied where guaranty and warranty speak for themselves, appear on their face to be signed by Appellant Stees, and all items claimed in judgment amount authorized by warrant of attorney; (2) petition to open properly denied where Appellants failed to produce evidence to establish Appellant Stees did not sign the guaranty, that the property was left with only normal wear and tear, that they did not remove equipment and the canopy from the property, or that the judgment amount was excessive; (3) the award of attorney's fees in the amount of $4,310.55 is reasonable where the principal balance was $86,210.99; and (4) pre-judgment interest in the amount of 6% is authorized legal rate in Pennsylvania). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/8/2016
Image materials not available for display.