: NO. 07 ON 4983 : PRESIDING JUDGE : COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT OPINJQN AND ORDER

Similar documents
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE OLER, J., AND EBERT J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER

OPINION. the Court on Defendant Danette I. Greiner's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Second

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW .-- ORDER OF COURT

.., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BELMONT FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., CIVIL DIVISION. Plaintiff NO.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

Appeal from the Order entered July 15, 2005 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No August Term 2004

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : Appellants : No: 1437 EDA 2016

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

2016 PA Super 130. Appeal from the Order April 10, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): No.

RULE 3. [Reserved] CHAPTER III. PETITION PRACTICE AND PLEADING

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : Appellees : No. 25 EDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellees No WDA 2013

BRADFORD COUNTY LOCAL CIVIL RULES. 1. Upon the filing of a divorce or custody action pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : No EDA 2016 : Appellant :

Plaintiff. Defendant ORDER. Defendant Michael J. Kahanic ("Kahanic") has filed preliminary objections to the

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellees No. 320 EDA 2014

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

WESTMORELAND COUNTY RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TABLE OF RULES

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION

Commonwealth v. Hernandez COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SABINO HERNANDEZ, JR., DEFENDANT

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellees No. 913 WDA 2012

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No EDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

Appellant. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. which dismissed her complaint against PennyMac Corporation and Gwendolyn

DO NOT PUBLISH XX MAY BE PUBLISHED

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION

COMES NOW Appellant, Douglas Michael Long, Jr. (hereinafter Doug ), by

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 983 MDA 2012

HARVEST CREDIT MANAGEMENT VII, L.L.C. JANICE L. HARRIS

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

CACH, LLC v. Taylor, Del: Court of Common Pleas CACH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH J. TAYLOR, Defendant. No. CPUU

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 426 MDA 2014

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : Appellee : : v. : : DARIA M. VIOLA, : : Appellant : No.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS COURT DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION

Commonwealth v. McCalvin COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PURNELL McCALVIN, Defendant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : No WDA 2012

These rules shall be known as the Local Rules for Columbia and Montour Counties, the 26 th Judicial District, and shall be cited as L.R. No.

: : : : : : : : : : : : Appeal from the Order Entered August 1, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division at No(s): 2013-N-814

2016 PA Super 208. Appeal from the Order Entered April 8, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s):

: : Appellee : No MDA 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ORDER OF THE COURT

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

J. A55007/ PA Super 100 BERNARD R. WAGNER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : MARK WAITLEVERTCH and JOHN RICTOR,

2015 PA Super 40 OPINION BY WECHT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 20, John Devlin ( Devlin ), executor of the Estate of Patricia Amelie Logan

2013 PA Super 111. Appellees No WDA 2012

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

Filing # E-Filed 09/22/ :42:05 PM

25 8/15/05 2 7/ /17/06 3 4/ /24/06 4 4/ /21/06 5 8/ /1/07 6 1/22/ /21/08 7 1/22/ /18/09 8 1/26/98

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT WESTERN DISTRICT PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC ADRIENNE METCALF

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : Appellee : : : : JOHN PUHL AND MARGARET PUHL, : : Appellants : No.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : Appellees : No EDA 2011

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P G. CRAIG CABA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

2006 PA Super 179 : : : Appellant : : v. : : NANCY S. HAMMER, : : Appellee : No WDA 2004

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

2007 PA Super 177. OPINION BY DANIELS, J.: Filed: June 11, These are Consolidated Appeals from the Order of the lower court

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

2014 PA Super 240. Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s):

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : : ORDER. AND NOW, this day of, 2007, upon

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellees No. 817 WDA 2015

Appeal from School Board of Director's Resolution; Preliminary Objections

Appeal from the ORDER Dated March 3, 2003, in the Court of Common Pleas of BUCKS County, CIVIL at No

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

Transcription:

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC vs. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 07 ON 4983 TAMMY SNYDER Defendant HON. illram A CARPENTER ill YALE D. WEINSTEIN, ESQUIRE EVANGELINE WRIGHT, ESQUIRE : PRESIDING JUDGE : COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER : COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT OPINJQN AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court for disposition of preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, Midland Funding LLC (hereinafter Plaintifl), initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 10, 2007. The complaint was served via sheriff's service upon Defendant Tammy Snyder (hereinafter Defendant) on September 11, 2007. Defendant filed preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Complaint on September 24, 2007 and a Brief in support of the preliminary objections on October 11, 2007. As a result, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October 15, 2007. Defendant then filed preliminary objections to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on November 5, 2007 and a supporting Brief on November 26, 2007. Responding, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the to Defendant's Preliminary Objections on December 17, 2007. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant opened a credit card account with Aspire Visa. Plf.'s Amend. Compo ~ 3,6 (Oct. 15,2007). Plaintiff further alleges that

Defendant made various purchases with that card and that "defendant is in default on the credit card account." Ml at ~ 6. Defendant is now allegedly in default for the total amount of $1,009.77 Id. at ~ 5. Plaintiff attaches toirsaffiehaoo~complaint-exhibin\; a "TransactiotrHistory;" which has Defendant's name and the alleged assigned Aspire Visa account number. Plaintiff attaches as Exhibit B, a copy of a document, or part of a document, with the words "Important Information: Bank Credit Card Agreement" in boldface. plaintiff further alleges that it purchased the credit card account from Aspire Visa and that Plaintiff now the holder and owner of the account. ld,. at 1f 7. There is no written agreement for the assignment attached to the Amended Complaint. As previously stated, Defendant filed a new set of preliminary objections to the Amended Complaint on November 5,2007 with a brief in support on November 26,2007. Plaintiff'filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Preliminary Objections on December 17, 2007. This Court now proceeds to disposition. DISCUSSION Pennsylvania is a fact -pleading jurisdiction wherein a claimant must set forth the facts upon which a cause of action is based. Alpha Tau Omeg Fmternity y. University of Pennsylvania. 464 A.2d 1349 (pa. Super. 1983). Pa.R.C.P. 1091 (a) states that "the material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary fonn. In addition., a pleading must be "sufficiently specific so as to enable a defendant to prepare [its] defense. Smith v' Wagner, 558 A2d 1308, 1310 (pa. Super. 1991). Preliminary objections may be sustained where no amendment of the complaint could cure the defect. See HQMnsee v.

~ 395 A. 2d 636 (pa. Cnunw. 1978) (Where the court found that Plaintiffs complaint had to be dismissed where it appeared that, "That no degree of reformation win pennit plaintiffs to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted.") Ifit is possible that the pleading can be.. cure,f5y amendment; a court', "must give tlrfpleaderan opportunitytofile anamended complaint... This is not a matter of discretion with the court but rather a positive duty." Framlau Corp. v. County of Delaware, 299 A.2d 335, 337 (pa.super.1972). I.&ll. In its first two preliminary objections, Defendant objects on the basis ofpa.r.c.p. 1028(a)(2) for lack of conformity to law or rule of court. Defendant avers that the Plaintiff failed to attach the alleged written agreement setting forth specifically Defendant'S obligations to Aspire Visa and also failed to attach the document evidencing the assignment of the Aspire Visa contract to Plaintiff Midland Funding LLC. Defendant avers that by neither attaching the documents, nor explaining the reason for their absence, Plaintiff violated the provisions of' Pa.R.C.P. l019(h) and (i), which require the attachment of the writing to the pleading. Plaintiff responds by stating that there is an exception to Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h) where the other side is a party to the writing and would have copies of it within its possession. It is wen settled Pennsylvania law that a complaint shall state the material facts on which a cause of action is based and where any claim is based upon an agreement, the complaint, shall state whether it was an oral or written agreement. Pa. R. Civ. P 1019 (a), (h). A party must attach a copy of the writing to the complaint, or state the reason for not attaching a copy of the writing and set forth the substance of the written agreement in their complaint. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019 (i).

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(i) states, "Wben any claim or defense is based upon a writing, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof... " Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(i). Exhibit A, attached to the Amended Complaint, does not satistyrule. ~ 1 019(i)-insofaFas~it-is~unclear-what~partofthea11egedcontract. has been attached. I.11e Defendant's signature (to us, the most "material" part of the writing) is not shown. Likewise, the date of the alleged agreement is missing from the "writing." We will require that Plaintiffflle an amended Complaint attaching a copy of the Agreement that is legible and shows both the signature of the Defendant and the date entered into. Further, Pa.R.C.P. 2002 (a) requires that all actions be brought by the real party in interest. Thus, under Pa.R. C.P. 1019, an assignee who brings suit must attach a copy of the assignment with the complaint or state why the contract is not attached while pleading the contract with specificity. Atlantic Credit and Fipanc~ Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A. 2d 340 (Pa. Super., 2003). In Atlantic Cregit, the Pennsylvania Superior Court (in order to determine whether to re~open a grant for default judgment, considered the preliminary objections filed by appellant) granted a preliminary objection for failure to attach a written contract of assigrunent as, "the failure to attach the writings which assertedly establish appellee's right to ajudgment against appellants... based on an alleged debt it allegedly purchased.. j, fatal to the claims set forth in appellee's complaint." Atlantic Credit and Finance., Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340,345 (pa.super., 2003). In the instant case, the Amended Complaint demonstrates that there are monies due and owing on a credit card. However, by failing to state why such contract is unavailable, and by failing to describe the repayment obligations which Defendant has allegedly agreed to and in

what manner Defendant has violated any such obligations, Plaintiff has not met the requirements ofpa. R. Civ. P. 1019 (h) and (i). Further, Plaintiff does not address its failure to attach the tenns of the assignment from ~-ASpire VisaIOlnePtamtiff.-~In PmdUWFactors~:-y;-Brown; 1-79A;-2d~919~(pil.super; 1962). the court specifically held that, "When suit is brought against the defendant by a stranger to his contract, he is entitled to proof that the plaintiffis the owner of the claim against him... Otherwise, the defendant might find himself subjected to the same liability to the original owner of the cause of action, in the event that there was no actual assignment." Id. at 921. In that case, the plaintiff had filed the original note as well as the original assigrunent of the note with their complaint. Id... In this case, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and attached exhibits do not state whether or not the assigrunent of the claim from Aspire Visa to Plaintiff was written, nor does it contain an attached copy of the assigrunent, nor does it state a reason why a copy is not attached in order to plead the assignment-with specificity. The Amended Complaint does not demonstrate that Defendant has entered into a contract with Plaintiff or that Plaintiffhas any privity of contract with the Defendant by assignment or otherwise. However, the right to amend pleadings must be granted liberally where an amendment would cure the defective Complaint. IlL Defendant also includes a preliminary- objection for insufficient specificity in a pleading in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1028 (a)(3) for failing to provide adequate documentation for charges allegedly made by the Defendant. Plaintiff responds to this by stating that Plaintiff did attach a transaction history and the tenns and conditions ofthe account as exhibits to the Amended Complaint.

In general, a plaintiff should be sufficiently clear and explicit in their complaint so that the defendant, to prepare his defense, may be informed ofplaintitfs demand as the purpose of pleadings is to frame concisely definite and distinct issues for trial. Glick y. Peoples~Pittsburgh ~~'-~-Tn..JSr-e~~EasrEnd-Branch;-7-A-:-2d-364,365~{Pa.-Super-;-1939)~!fhe-test-Gi'-whethef,of-not,the complaint is sufficiently specific is whether the complaint reasonably infonns the defendant of the facts they must prepare to defend at trial and infonns the defendant of the specific basis on which recovery is sought so that they may know without question upon what grounds to make their defense. 4 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d 21 :42. A complaint may be insufficient where allegations of the cause of action are vague, concerned with broad generalities and contain no time, place or nature of event of situation against an answer may be required. Frrun1au Corp. v. Delaware County,299 A.2d 335, 337 (pa.super. 1972). In determining whether a complaint is sufficiently specific, all avennents of the complaint are considered together and appraised in light of the nature of the case. 4 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d 21 :42. In the instant case, Defendant avers they are unable to fonn an appropriate answer where Plaintiff in their complaint provided only a generic statement of charges rather than actual account statements. Plaintiff responds that they have set forth the account number as well as the details set forth in the transaction history. This CO\.lrt has reviewed the Amended Complaint and all of its avennents to detennine whether it is in confonnity with the law and sufficiently specific. As discussed above. Plaintiff is required to plead the repayment obligations and default by Defendant in the compjaint (if they are unable to attach a copy of the written contract) and to attach a copy of the written assignment to demonstrate privity of contract with Defendant. Thus we find merit in the Defendant's preliminary objections.

.. '. However, the right to amend pleadings must be granted liberally where an amendme~t would cure the defective Complaint. And for all these reasons we enter the following; as follows: QRDER ~ --NOW-tlrts----lt-------dayofianuary,-2008-it-is-eRDERED,DEGREBD and DlREG'I'RD 1. Defendant Snyder's Preliminary Objections I and II are sustained. 3. Plaintiff has 20 days to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this opinion.