DocketNumber: Appeal, 713
Judges: Wright, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Oercone, Packel, Cehcone
Filed Date: 9/15/1972
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Opinion by
Defendant appeals from the order of the court below, discharging its rule to open a default judgment entered for failure to file an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint. The determinative question in this case is whether the defendant established a sufficient excuse for the default. The lower court found defendant’s excuse insufficient, and we cannot reverse this finding unless it represents a clear, manifest abuse of discretion. Walters v. Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co., 417 Pa. 438, 207 A.2d 852 (1965). Such an abuse of discretion has not been shown in this case.
The asserted excuse for counsel’s failure to meet the filing deadline is that counsel was busy with other litigation and confused the deadline date with that of another case. The lower court found this excuse inadequate in view of the surrounding circumstances. Those circumstances included the following: Counsel was found to have had no adequate system for reminding himself of impending deadlines. In fact, it was only
The defendant argues that it should not be held responsible for its counsel’s mistake. However, in our opinion the failure of counsel to file on time was not the result of mistake or oversight but simply procras
The lower court in the present case could have opened the judgment, but was not compelled to do so. Since its decision not to open the judgment was authorized by law and supported by the facts, we are unable to find an abuse of discretion on the court’s part. Accordingly, the lower court’s order must be affirmed.
Order affirmed.
At the time counsel discovered the impending deadline it was too late for him to timely file his pleading and he was unable to contact the plaintiffs’ attorney prior to the expiration of the deadline.