NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013

Similar documents
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : Appellee : : v. : : DALE J. HANCOCK, : Appellant : No.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : Appellees : No. 25 EDA 2013

2017 PA Super 110. Appeal from the Order Dated March 9, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Civil Division at No(s):

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellees No. 320 EDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No WDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : No EDA 2016 : Appellant :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No MDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : No WDA 2012

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No EDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P APPEAL OF LAURA S. MCCLARAN No. 836 WDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

2018 PA Super 25 : : : : : : : : :

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

2017 PA Super 369 OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 20, A.S.D. a/k/a A.S.D. appeals from the trial court s order, dated October

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 : : : : : : : : : : : :

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

2017 PA Super 386 : : : : : : : : : :

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

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

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

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P APPEAL OF: JAMES BONELLI No. 667 EDA 2015

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

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

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

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

2015 PA Super 131. Appeal from the Order Entered May 2, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at No: S

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. 913 WDA 2012

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

2018 PA Super 13 : : : : : : : : :

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

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

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

2017 PA Super 174. Appeal from the Order Entered July 7, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s):

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P APPEAL OF: RYAN KERWIN No. 501 EDA 2014

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 Appellee No EDA 2013

2014 PA Super 159 : : : : : : : : :

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

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellee No WDA 2014

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

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

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

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

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : No EDA 2016 : NAIM NEWSOME :

2015 PA Super 37. Appeal from the Order Entered February 25, 2014, In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Civil Division, at No

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 No MDA 2013

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

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

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 No. 57 EDA 2014

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

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

2016 PA Super 91. OPINION BY OTT, J.: Filed: April 28, Anthony Stilo appeals from the July 23, 2014, judgment of sentence

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

Transcription:

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CHARMAINE COOPER SHERESE ABRAMS v. Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant No. 1430 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered April 17, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 120401744 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J. FILED MARCH 10, 2014 Sherese Abrams appeals, pro se, from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on April 17, 2013, denying her petition to open a default judgment. Following a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, the certified record, and relevant law, we affirm. Our standard of review regarding the denial of a petition to open or strike a default judgment requires that we: examine the entire record for any abuse of discretion, reversing only where the trial court's findings are inconsistent with the clear equities of the case. Moreover, this Court must determine whether there are equitable considerations which require that a defendant, against whom a default judgment has been entered, receive an opportunity to have the case decided on the merits. Where the trial court s analysis was premised upon record evidence, where its findings of fact were deductions from other facts, a pure result of reasoning, and

where the trial court made no credibility determinations, this Court may draw its own inferences and arrive at its own conclusions. Finally, where the equities warrant opening a default judgment, this Court will not hesitate to find an abuse of discretion. Reid v. Boohar, 856 A.2d 156, 159 (Pa. Super. 2004). We begin by noting the underlying issue of this appeal is a landlordtenant dispute. Charmaine Cooper, landlord, filed an action in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County seeking payment of back rent from Abrams, as well as her eviction. A hearing on that claim was scheduled for April 4, 2012. However, Abrams did not appear and a default judgment was entered against her. On that same day, Abrams filed a petition to open the default judgment. That petition was denied on April 15, 2012. No reasons were provided in that order. On April 16, 2012, Abrams filed an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. However, the appeal did not specify if she was appealing from the order denying the petition to open or from the default judgment. Whichever order Abrams was appealing, she took no further action until March 22, 2013, at which time she filed another petition to open judgment. On April 15, 2013, that petition was also denied. On May 13, 2013, Abrams filed this timely appeal from the April 15, 2013 denial of her second petition to open judgment. - 2 -

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the Honorable Ellen Ceisler noted multiple reasons why Abrams s petition was properly denied. First, the petition failed to conform to Philadelphia County Local Rule 1001 regarding appeals from Municipal Court to Common Pleas Court. 1 Abrams failed to supply the Common Pleas Court with copies of the landlord-tenant complaint, the stenographic record of the Municipal Court hearing, or any of the other applicable documents as required by rule. See Phila.Cnty.Ct.R. 1001(f)(2)(i)(a)-(c). More importantly, Judge Ceisler determined that Abrams could not succeed on the merits because the petition was untimely. Generally speaking, a default judgment may be opened if the moving party has (1) promptly filed a petition to open the default judgment, (2) provided a reasonable excuse or explanation for failing to file a responsive pleading, and (3) pleaded a meritorious defense to the allegations contained in the complaint. McFarland v. Whitman, 518 Pa. 496, 544 A.2d 929 (1988); Seeger v. First Union National Bank, 836 A.2d 163 (Pa. Super. 2003). Kelly v. Siuma, 34 A.3d 86, 92 (Pa. Super. 2004) (footnote omitted). Further, we note, The timeliness of a petition to open a judgment is measured from the date that notice of the entry of the default judgment is received. The law does not establish a specific time period within which a petition to open a judgment must be filed to qualify as 1 We note similar procedural failings in Abrams s Appellant s Brief filed with our Court. However, given our disposition of the appeal, we need not address those shortcomings. - 3 -

timely. Instead, the court must consider the length of time between discovery of the entry of the default judgment and the reason for delay. * * * In cases where the appellate courts have found a prompt and timely filing of the petition to open a default judgment, the period of delay has normally been less than one month. See Duckson v. Wee Wheelers, Inc., 423 Pa.Super. 251, 620 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Super. 1993) (one day is timely); Alba v. Urology Associates of Kingston, 409 Pa.Super. 406, 598 A.2d 57 (Pa. Super. 1991) (fourteen days is timely); Fink v. General Accident Ins. Co., 406 Pa.Super. 294, 594 A.2d 345 (Pa. Super. 1991) (period of five days is timely). US Bank N.A. [v. Mallory], 982 A.2d [986] at 995 [(Pa. Super. 2009)] (quotation omitted) (finding eighty-two day delay was not timely). See Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 986 A.2d 171 (Pa. Super. 2009) (indicating delay of fourteen days in filing petition to open was timely); Pappan v. Stefan, 451 Pa. 354, 304 A.2d 143 (1973) (fifty-five day delay was not prompt). Id. Here, the delay in filing the instant petition is not counted in days or weeks, but months. The default judgment was taken on April 4, 2012. The record reveals Abrams was aware of the default that same day. The instant petition was not filed until March 22, 2013, more than eleven months after Abrams knew of the default. Additionally, she provided no explanation why it took nearly one year to file the petition. Accordingly, Judge Ceisler did not - 4 -

abuse her discretion in determining the petition was not timely and in denying it. In light of the foregoing, we affirm the order denying Abrams s petition to open the default judgment. Order affirmed. Bowes, J., concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 3/10/2014-5 -