Stone, T. v. 4 Rides Auto Sales, LLC ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-A30003-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    TROYCEE JADE STONE                                IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    4 RIDES AUTO SALES, LLC AND FURAD
    WOODARD
    Appellant                 No. 2829 EDA 2014
    Appeal from the Order Entered August 28, 2014
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Civil Division at No(s): July Term 2013, No. 02687
    BEFORE: MUNDY, J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
    MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.:                           FILED JANUARY 08, 2016
    Appellants, 4 Rides Auto Sales, LLC (4 Rides) and Furad Woodard,
    appeal from the August 28, 2014 order denying their motion for post-trial
    relief after the trial court assessed damages in favor of Appellee, Troycee
    Jade Stone.1 After careful review, we affirm.
    ____________________________________________
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    We note that Appellants filed their appeal prematurely from the August 28,
    2014 denial of post-trial motions before judgment was entered.          See
    Pa.R.C.P. 227.4(2) (noting that either party may praecipe for the entry of
    judgment after the trial court denies relief but does not enter judgment).
    However, Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) provides that “[a] notice of appeal filed after
    the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable
    order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.”
    Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5); see also Mackall v. Fleegle, 
    801 A.2d 577
    , 581 (Pa.
    Super. 2002) (refusing to quash an appeal from the denial of post-trial
    motions when neither party praeciped for the entry of judgment; instead, “in
    (Footnote Continued Next Page)
    J-A30003-15
    The trial court summarized the facts and procedural history of this
    case as follows.
    On July 19, 2013, [Stone] filed a Complaint
    against [Appellants]. [Stone] was driving behind a
    vehicle driven by [] Woodard and owned by [] 4
    Rides. [Stone] alleged a piece of debris fell from the
    undercarriage of this vehicle. [Stone] swerved to
    avoid the debris, crashed, and suffered injuries.
    In the Complaint, [Stone] alleged the
    [Appellants’] address was 307 N. Chester Pike
    Glenolden, Pa 19036. On August 16, 2013, the
    Sheriff made several attempts to serve the
    Complaint at that address but there was no response
    at the door. [Stone] filed a Motion for Alternative
    Service. The [trial court] granted [Stone’s] Motion
    and authorized the Complaint to be served by
    regular and certified mail. The certified mail went
    unclaimed but the regular mail was not returned.
    [Appellants] failed to timely respond to the
    Complaint. On December 3, 2013, [Stone] sent
    [Appellants] a notice of his intention to take default
    judgment for [Appellants’] failure to respond to the
    Complaint. This notice was sent to the Glenolden
    address.      Again, [Appellants] did not respond.
    [Stone] subsequently filed a Praecipe to Enter
    Default Judgment and served it on [Appellants] by
    first class mail at the same Glenolden address.
    A Default Judgment was entered on December
    17, 2013. Notice of the default judgment was sent
    to [Appellants] by regular mail at the Glenolden
    address. An assessment of damages hearing was
    scheduled for February 3, 2014.       [] Woodard
    _______________________
    (Footnote Continued)
    the interests of judicial economy we will regard as done what ought to have
    been done[]”). Therefore, even though neither party praeciped for the entry
    of judgment following the assessment of damages, we will not quash this
    appeal as interlocutory. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5); Mackall, supra.
    -2-
    J-A30003-15
    received notice of the hearing by regular mail at the
    Glenolden Address. [] Woodard appeared at the
    hearing without an attorney.       The [trial court]
    continued the hearing to March 17, 2014, so []
    Woodard could retain counsel.
    On February 19, Michael McDermott, Esquire
    entered his appearance on behalf of both
    [Appellants]. On the same day, he filed a Petition to
    Open Default Judgment.         In that petition,
    [Appellants] claimed that they never received the
    Complaint. [The trial court] denied the Petition to
    Open Default Judgment on March 27, 2014.
    The assessment of damages hearing was
    rescheduled and held on May 19, 2014. … [Stone]
    presented uncontested evidence of $51,200 in lost
    wages and $11,520 in outstanding medical bills.
    After hearing evidence, [the trial court] awarded
    [Stone] $123,000.
    On June 9, [2014,] [Appellants] filed a post-
    verdict motion which sought a new trial or, in the
    alternative, remittitur.[2] In support of a new trial,
    ____________________________________________
    2
    We note this post-trial motion was untimely filed.            See Pa.R.C.P.
    227.1(c)(2) (providing post-trial motions must be filed within ten days after
    the decision in a bench trial). However, the motion was filed within 30-days
    after the trial court entered its assessment of damages, Stone did not object
    to its untimeliness, and the trial court addressed the merits contained
    therein. Therefore, we treat this as the trial court implicitly granting leave to
    file the post-trial motion. See Millard v. Nagle, 
    587 A.2d 10
    , 12 (Pa.
    Super. 1991) (noting that it is within the trial court’s discretion to address
    the merits of an untimely post-trial motion if the opposing party does not
    object), affirmed, 
    625 A.2d 641
     (Pa. 1993) (per curiam). We will not review
    this exercise of the trial court’s discretion, and we address the merits of this
    case. See 
    id.
     (explaining the trial court’s decision to address untimely post-
    trial motions “should not be subject to review by this court, and we should
    go on to consider the issues contained in these motions on their merits, as
    did the trial court[]”); accord Kurtas v. Kurtas, 
    555 A.2d 804
    , 806 (Pa.
    1989).
    -3-
    J-A30003-15
    [Appellants] claimed the [trial court] committed
    prejudicial error when it denied the Petition to Open
    Default Judgment. [Appellants] argued that there
    had been improper service.
    The post-verdict motion was not verified by
    any [Appellant]. In a single paragraph of the post-
    verdict motion, Counsel for [Appellants] alleged
    various facts in support of a remittitur. None of
    these facts were offered into evidence during the
    May 19[, 2014] hearing.          [Appellants’] Counsel
    alleged that the only possible part that could have
    fallen off of the vehicle was a very small exhaust tip,
    thereby suggesting that [Stone’s injury claims were
    fraudulent. [Appellants’] Counsel also alleges that
    [Woodard] was unaware of anything falling off his
    vehicle.     He further alleges that [Stone’s] own
    negligence       contributed    to     the    accident.
    Furthermore, [Appellants’] Counsel alleges that
    [Stone] told [] Woodard that he was on the phone
    with his girl friend [sic] and was not paying attention
    at the time of the accident.
    By Order dated August 21, 2014, [and entered
    August 28, 2014,] [the trial court] denied
    [Appellants’] post-trial motion. It is this Order from
    which [Appellants] have appealed.[3]
    Trial Court Opinion, 2/4/15, at 1-3 (footnotes omitted).
    On appeal, Appellants present the following three issues for our
    review.
    1. Did the trial court err by refusing to strike the
    judgment where the record reflects a fatal defect in
    the procedural aspects of taking a default judgment
    because the procedure does not conform to Phila.
    Civ. R. 430.1(B) and/or Pa.R.C.P. [] 440. Service of
    ____________________________________________
    3
    Appellants and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
    Appellate Procedure 1925.
    -4-
    J-A30003-15
    Legal Papers Other than Original Process, making the
    entry of judgment void ab initio?
    2. Did the trial court err in denying a petition to open
    default and failing to consider all three criteria for
    opening a default where numerous meritorious
    defenses to the allegations where [sic] contained [in]
    [Appellants’] Answer to [Stone’s] Complaint, where
    [Appellants] provided a reasonable explanation for
    failing to file a timely responsive pleading, and
    [Appellants], through present counsel, promptly filed
    a petition to open default?
    3. Did the trial court err[] in denying the petition to
    open default judgment by failing to consider the
    equities of the matter, the prejudice to [Appellants]
    if the petition to open was denied and whether
    [Stone] would suffer any prejudice if the petition to
    open default was granted?
    Appellants’ Brief at 4.
    In Appellants’ first issue on appeal, they contend that the default
    judgment should be stricken.4           We review a petition to strike a default
    judgment according to the following standard.
    An appeal regarding a petition to strike a
    default judgment implicates the Pennsylvania Rules
    of Civil Procedure. Issues regarding the operation of
    procedural rules of court present us with questions of
    ____________________________________________
    4
    Appellants did not present a motion to strike the default judgment as void
    to the trial court. However, a motion to strike a void judgment is not
    waivable and can be raised for the first time on appeal. See Mother’s
    Rest. Inc. v. Krystkiewicz, 
    861 A.2d 327
     (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining
    “an individual may even seek to strike a void judgment after a trial court has
    previously denied his/her petition to open the same judgment. … [O]ur Court
    has permitted litigants to attack other void decrees for the first time on
    appeal[]”) (citations omitted).
    -5-
    J-A30003-15
    law. Therefore, our standard of review is de novo
    and our scope of review is plenary.
    A petition to strike a judgment is a common
    law proceeding which operates as a demurrer to the
    record. A petition to strike a judgment may be
    granted only for a fatal defect or irregularity
    appearing on the face of the record. [A] petition to
    strike is not a chance to review the merits of the
    allegations of a complaint. Rather, a petition to strike
    is aimed at defects that affect the validity of the
    judgment and that entitle the petitioner, as a matter
    of law, to relief. A fatal defect on the face of the
    record denies the prothonotary the authority to enter
    judgment. When a prothonotary enters judgment
    without authority, that judgment is void ab initio.
    When deciding if there are fatal defects on the face
    of the record for the purposes of a petition to strike a
    [default] judgment, a court may only look at what
    was in the record when the judgment was entered.
    Green Acres Rehab. & Nursing Ctr. v. Sullivan, 
    113 A.3d 1261
    , 1267-
    1268 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
    Herein, Appellants contend that the judgment should be stricken as
    void because Stone did not comply with Philadelphia County Local Rule of
    Civil Procedure 430.1(B) or Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 440.
    Specifically, Appellants’ analysis of this issue is confined to the following
    sentence in their appellate brief, “[Stone’s] counsel never served the two
    [Appellants] separately with any papers including the complaint and never
    sent each defendant a singular copy of any of the legal papers.” Appellants’
    Brief at 17.
    The rules of civil procedure applicable to this case are Philadelphia
    County Rule of Civil Procedure 430.1, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure
    -6-
    J-A30003-15
    424, and Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 440. Rule 430.1 provides as
    follows.
    Rule 430.1. Alternate Service
    (A) Right of Service. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No.
    430, the plaintiff has the right of service in such
    manner as the Court by special Order shall direct in
    cases where service cannot otherwise be made.
    (B) Procedure. When a return of “Not Found” or its
    equivalent has been made after more than one
    attempt to make service by the Sheriff or where the
    first return of “Not Found” indicates that further
    attempts at personal service would not be
    successful, the plaintiff’s counsel may request an
    order permitting service of the complaint by regular
    mail to the defendant’s last known address by filing
    an affidavit ….
    Phila.Civ.R. 430.1(A)-(B).   Rule 424, which governs the service of process
    on corporations, provides as follows.
    Rule 424. Corporations and Similar Entities
    Service of original process upon a corporation or
    similar entity shall be made by handing a copy to
    any of the following persons provided the person
    served is not a plaintiff in the action:
    (1) an executive officer, partner or trustee of the
    corporation or similar entity, or
    (2) the manager, clerk or other person for the time
    being in charge of any regular place of business or
    activity of the corporation or similar entity, or
    (3) an agent authorized by the corporation or similar
    entity in writing to receive service of process for it.
    -7-
    J-A30003-15
    Pa.R.C.P. 424.    Additionally, Rule 440, which sets for the procedure for
    service of other legal papers, states, in relevant part, as follows.
    Rule 440. Service of Legal Papers Other than
    Original Process
    (a)(1) Copies of all legal papers other than original
    process filed in an action or served upon any party to
    an action shall be served upon every other party to
    the action. …
    …
    (2)(i) If there is no attorney of record, service
    shall be made by handing a copy to the party
    or by mailing a copy to or leaving a copy for
    the party at the address endorsed on an
    appearance or prior pleading or the residence
    or place of business of the party ….
    (ii) If such service cannot be made, service
    shall be made by leaving a copy at or mailing a
    copy to the last known address of the party to
    be served.
    (b) Service by mail of legal papers other than
    original process is complete upon mailing.
    Pa.R.C.P. 440(a)-(b).      “Due process, reduced to its most elemental
    component, requires notice.”     PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 
    929 A.2d 219
    , 230 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “The adequacy of this
    notice, as applied to substituted service, depends upon whether it is
    reasonably calculated to give the party actual notice of the pending litigation
    and an opportunity to be heard.” 
    Id.
     (citations omitted).
    Herein, Stone filed a motion for alternative service pursuant to
    Philadelphia Local Rule 430.1.     In the accompanying affidavit, counsel for
    -8-
    J-A30003-15
    Stone explained that the Delaware County Sheriff’s Department attempted
    to serve the complaint on Appellants at their last known address, 307 North
    Chester Pike, Glenolden, PA 19036, but the return of service affidavits
    indicated there was “no response at door.” Further, Stone stated that the 4
    Rides website provided that was the address for the business and also
    indicated that Woodard was the corporation’s contact at that address. Stone
    also verified that neither defendant had a change of address on file with the
    U.S. Postal Service. Accordingly, Stone requested the trial court to enter an
    order directing service via first-class mail addressed to 4 Rides and Woodard
    at 307 North Chester Pike.
    On October 18, 2013, the trial court granted Stone’s motion for
    alternative service.    On November 14, 2013, Stone filed an affidavit of
    service, indicating that he mailed a time-stamped copy of the complaint to 4
    Rides and Woodard by certified and regular mail at 307 North Chester Pike.
    The affidavit of service further stated that the certified mail was unclaimed
    by Appellants, but the first-class mail copy was not returned to Stone.
    Contrary to Appellants’ argument, there is no defect on the face of the
    record with regard to service of the complaint because the trial court
    permitted alternative service, and Stone accomplished service by first-class
    mail in compliance with the trial court’s order.          See Phila. Civ. R. 430.1;
    Pa.R.C.P. 424.      Moreover, the trial court reasonably calculated the
    alternative   service   to   give   Appellants   actual    notice   of   the   pending
    -9-
    J-A30003-15
    proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.        See PNC Bank, supra.
    Therefore, Appellants’ argument that the complaint was not properly served
    is meritless, and Appellants have not demonstrated a fatal defect on the face
    of the record. See Green Acres, supra.
    Likewise, Stone served both Appellants with notice of intention to take
    default, and the praecipes to enter default judgment, at 307 North Chester
    Pike. The trial court found that Appellants received actual notice of all the
    filings in this case as follows.
    [Stone’s] Complaint, the Notice of Intent to Enter
    Default Judgment, the Notice of Default Judgment,
    and the first Notice of the Assessment of Damages
    hearing were all sent to [Appellants’] proper
    Glenolden address.       [Appellants] knew of the
    scheduled trial by notice sent to that same address.
    He appeared for the first time in the case at the
    February 3, 2014 assessment of damages hearing.
    The Glenolden address was accurate.
    Trial Court Opinion, 2/4/15, at 4.    The record supports the trial court’s
    determination. Moreover, we note that Woodard was the agent listed on the
    4 Rides website.     As such, mailing a copy of the complaint and all other
    pleadings to him in both his individual capacity and as an agent for 4 Rides
    was sufficient to provide notice to both Appellants.    See Pa.R.C.P. 424.
    Further, on December 13, 2013, Stone filed a certification of service stating
    that he had served the notice of intent to enter default judgment on both 4
    Rides and Woodard at 307 North Chester Pike on December 3, 2013.
    Thereafter, on December 17, 2013, Stone filed a separate praecipe to enter
    - 10 -
    J-A30003-15
    default judgment as to each Appellant, accompanied by a certification of
    service verifying that he independently served each Appellant at 307 North
    Chester Pike. That same day, the prothonotary entered judgment in favor of
    Stone and against each Appellant separately.      As such, there are no fatal
    defects on the face of the record, and Appellants are not entitled to relief on
    their motion to strike. See Green Acres, supra.
    In their second and third issues on appeal, Appellants contend that the
    trial court erred in denying their petition to open. The trial court entered the
    order denying Appellants’ petition to open on March 27, 2014. Pursuant to
    Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(a)(1), that interlocutory order
    was immediately appealable as of right.       Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1).    However,
    Appellants did not immediately appeal the denial of the petition to open.
    Nonetheless, Rule 311(g)(1)(i) provides that the failure to immediately
    appeal an order denying a petition to open does not constitute waiver, “and
    the objection may be raised on any subsequent appeal in the matter from a
    determination on the merits.”       Id. at 311(g)(1)(i).    Consequently, we
    address Appellant’s second and third issues asserting that the trial court
    erred in denying their petition to open.
    We review an appeal from an order denying a petition to open under
    the following standard.
    A petition to open a default judgment is an appeal to
    the equitable powers of the [trial] court.        The
    decision to grant or deny a petition to open a default
    judgment is within the sound discretion of the trial
    - 11 -
    J-A30003-15
    court, and we will not overturn that decision absent
    a manifest abuse of discretion or error of law.
    …
    Ordinarily, if a petition to open a judgment is to be
    successful, it must meet the following test: (1) the
    petition to open must be promptly filed; (2) the
    failure to appear or file a timely answer must be
    excused; and (3) the party seeking to open the
    judgment must show a meritorious defense ….[5] In
    making this determination, a court can consider facts
    not before it at the time the judgment was entered.
    Green Acres, supra at 1270 (citations omitted).
    The trial court denied Appellants’ petition to open on the basis that the
    petition was not promptly filed.         Trial Court Opinion, 2/4/15, at 4 (noting
    that the petition was filed 64 days after the entry of judgment); see also
    Pa.R.C.P. 237.3(b) (providing a petition to open filed within ten days is
    timely); Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 
    986 A.2d 171
    , 176 (Pa. Super.
    2009) (noting that generally one month or less between the entry of default
    judgment and the filing of a petition to open typically meets the time
    requirement for “prompt filing”).                  Additionally, the trial court found
    Appellants provided no explanation for the delays in filing either the petition
    to open or the answer to the complaint. 
    Id.
     On appeal, Appellants contend
    ____________________________________________
    5
    A trial court must grant a petition to open that is filed within ten days of
    the entry of judgment and presents a proposed answer containing a
    meritorious defense. Pa.R.C.P. 237.3(b). However, herein, there is no
    dispute that Lloyd did not file the petition to open within ten days.
    Accordingly, he must meet these three requirements to open the judgment.
    - 12 -
    J-A30003-15
    that they alleged meritorious defenses in the petition to open and that
    opening the default judgment will not prejudice Appellees.             However,
    Appellants still do not assert that the trial court abused its discretion or
    erred as a matter of law in finding that the petition to open was not timely
    filed or that the failure to file a timely answer was excusable.         Even if
    Appellants presented a meritorious defense, Appellants did not timely file the
    petition or offer an excuse for failing to file a timely answer to the complaint.
    Therefore, Appellants did not meet two of the requirements necessary to
    open a judgment, and we discern no manifest abuse of discretion or an error
    of law in the trial court’s decision to deny Appellants’ petition to open. See
    Green Acres, supra. Accordingly, Appellants second and third issues on
    appeal are meritless. See id.
    Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Appellants’ petition to strike
    is meritless.   See Green Acres, supra at 1267-1268.          Further, the trial
    court did not manifestly abuse its discretion or err as a matter of law by
    denying Appellants’ petition to open.     See id. at 1270.      Accordingly, we
    affirm the trial court’s order entered August 28, 2014, denying Appellants’
    motion for post-trial relief with regard to the assessment of damages.
    Order affirmed.
    - 13 -
    J-A30003-15
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 1/8/2016
    - 14 -