Est. of: J.M. v. McFadden, J. ( 2023 )

J-A19012-23
2023 PA Super 242ESTATE OF JOAN MCFADDEN, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN MCFADDEN :
: No. 263 EDA 2023
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered December 28, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County Civil Division at No(s):
19-2652
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
OPINION BY BOWES, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2023
John McFadden (“Appellant”) appeals from the order that denied his
petition to strike or open the $559,254.27 New Jersey judgment entered
against him and in favor of the Estate of Joan McFadden (“the Estate”) by
praecipe in Carbon County, Pennsylvania. We reverse and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The trial court set forth the following procedural history.
On September 24, 2019, [the Estate] filed a praecipe for the entry
of judgment against Appellant. . . . Accompanying this praecipe
were numerous documents from the State of New Jersey, along
with an “Affidavit by Foreign Fiduciary Pursuant to Section 4101
of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, and 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 4306.” That same day, judgment in the amount of $559,254.27
was entered by the Carbon County Prothonotary’s Office in favor
of the Estate and against the Appellant.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19012-23
On March 15, 2022, a writ of execution was filed by the Estate.
Before execution occurred, Appellant filed the instant petition to
strike and/or open this foreign judgment [based in part upon the
argument that the docket entries were not properly
authenticated].
On September 29, 2022, a hearing was held[, during which the
court heard testimony from Herbert J. Stayton, Junior, Esquire,
the attorney responsible for handling the litigation aspects of the
Estate’s case in New Jersey. He testified with regard to how he
requested certified copies of the docket entries from New Jersey
for use in filing by another attorney in Carbon County,
Pennsylvania. After the hearing,] both parties lodged a brief or
memorandum of law in support of their respective positions. On
December 28, 2022, th[e trial] court issued an order denying the
Appellant’s petition in toto.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/28/23, at 1-2 (cleaned up).
This timely appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant presents the following issues for our
consideration:
1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to strike the entry of
the foreign judgment when the document which purports to be
the docket entries incidental to the foreign judgment was not
properly authenticated as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 4306(b).
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to strike the entry of
the foreign judgment when the document which purports to be
the docket entries incidental to the foreign judgment was not
properly authenticated in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a).
3. Whether the trial court made a factual and legal error in
finding that the document which purports to be the docket entries
incidental to the foreign judgment contained the “seal of the
Honorable Mary Ann C. O’Brien, Surrogate, Surrogate and Deputy
Clerk of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part,
Burlington County.”
4. Whether the trial court erred in not finding that the notice
of the filing of the foreign judgment which was sent to the
-2-
J-A19012-23
judgment debtor by the Carbon County Prothonotary does not
include the name and post office address of the judgment creditor
and the attorney for the judgment creditor as required by 42
Pa.C.S. § 4306(c)(2), and failing to strike the foreign judgment
because of that deficiency.
5. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Appellee did
not need to comply with 20 Pa.C.S. § 4101 et seq. prior to or
simultaneously with filing the foreign judgment in the Carbon
County Prothonotary’s Office, and failing to strike the foreign
judgment because of that deficiency.
Appellant’s brief at 4-5 (cleaned up).
We begin with the legal principles guiding our review. Since a petition
to strike a default judgment presents us with questions of law regarding the
operation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, “our standard of review
is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Grady v. Nelson, 286 A.3d
259, 264 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up). Moreover,
[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 . . .
judgment, a court may only look at what was in the record when
the judgment was entered.
Id. (cleaned up).
Appellant first argues that the New Jersey judgment was not properly
authenticated pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
-3-
J-A19012-23
(“UEFJA”), 42 Pa.C.S. § 4306, because it lacked a seal and a certificate “that
Surrogate and Deputy Clerk O’Brien had legal custody of the docket entries.”
Appellant’s brief at 15-16. The UEFJA-implicated Pennsylvania statutes
provide as follows:
A copy of any foreign judgment including the docket entries
incidental thereto authenticated in accordance with act of
Congress or this title may be filed in the office of the clerk
of any court of common pleas of this Commonwealth. The
clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a
judgment of any court of common pleas of this Commonwealth.
A judgment so filed shall be a lien as of the date of filing and shall
have the same effect and be subject to the same procedures,
defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a
judgment of any court of common pleas of this Commonwealth
and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.
42 Pa.C.S. § 4306(b) (emphasis added). Section 5328, the corresponding
Pennsylvania law, provides:
An official record kept within the United States, or any state,
district, commonwealth, territory, insular possession thereof, or
the Panama Canal Zone, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied by a certificate
that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be
made by a judge of a court of record having jurisdiction in
the governmental unit in which the record is kept,
authenticated by the seal of the court, or by any public
officer having a seal of office and having official duties in
the governmental unit in which the record is kept,
authenticated by the seal of his office.
42 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court has explained
the relationship of these statutes thusly: “[A]uthentication under UEFJA
requires that a ‘certificate’ accompany the foreign judgment. Pennsylvania
-4-
J-A19012-23
law mandates a certificate from a judge or other officer in the originating
jurisdiction as to custody of the record.” Domus, Inc. v. Signature Bldg.
Sys. of PA, LLC, 252 A.3d 628, 631 (Pa. 2021).
As noted, the Estate filed the foreign judgment in Carbon County on
September 24, 2019. Upon review, that filing included, inter alia, incidental
docket entries, which were attested to by the Deputy Surrogate as a complete
and true copy. However, while the docket entries contained an attestation to
the veracity of the copy, they lacked a certificate affirming the clerk’s custody
of the docket. Moreover, despite indicating in the text above the clerk’s
signature that an official seal of the clerk’s office was affixed, no official seal
of either the clerk’s office or the court appears in relation to the docket entries.
Thus, the docket entries lacked a certification that complied with §§ 4306(b)
and 5328(a). Cf. Medina & Medina, Inc. v. Gurrentz Int'l Corp., 450 A.2d
108, 110 (Pa.Super. 1982) (finding requirements of § 5328(a) had been met
where the document stated the authenticity of the docket entries, was signed
by the clerk, bore the seal of the court, and “adequately disclose[d] that the
clerk ha[d] possession of the original from which the copy was made”). As
this deficiency was apparent on the face of the record, we conclude that the
trial court erred in denying Appellant’s petition to strike.1
____________________________________________
1 We note that the trial court relied in part on testimony offered at the petition-
to-strike hearing from Attorney Stayton, who procured the docket entries in
New Jersey and claimed that what he received was the common, accepted
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5-
J-A19012-23
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s
petition to strike and remand for the court to enter an order granting
Appellant’s petition to strike due to the deficient certification of the docket
entries. Since we reverse on this basis, we need not reach Appellant’s
remaining issues.
Order reversed. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Date: 11/27/2023
____________________________________________
practice for the past forty years in New Jersey. See Order of Court, 12/29/22,
at 1 n.2 (I). We remind the court that such after-the-fact testimony is outside
the purview of its review of a petition to strike. See Grady v. Nelson, 286
A.3d 259, 264 (Pa.Super. 2022) (“When deciding if there are fatal defects on
the face of the record for the purposes of a petition to strike a . . . judgment,
a court may only look at what was in the record when the judgment was
entered.” (cleaned up)).
-6-