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

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

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

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

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR 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 LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION

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

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

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS

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

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

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

Wilmac Healthcare, Inc. v. Rodriguez

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

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

Rule 341. Request for Entry of Satisfaction; Service; Entry of Satisfaction.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : Appellants : No: 1437 EDA 2016

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THOMSON, S. J.

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

Case 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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


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

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : Appellees : No. 25 EDA 2013

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

CHAPTER 300. CIVIL ACTION

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

No CV. On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC A

DO NOT PUBLISH XX MAY BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No pleading or other legal paper that complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of

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

Plaintiff, Defendant. Plaintiff brings the instant motion for summary judgment on this action arising

Appeal from the Order entered on April 25, 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Civil Division, No

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P J. OLIVERI TRUCKING, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

2001 PA Super 39 : : : : : : Appeal from the Order of January 31, 2000 In the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division Allegheny County, No.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

Plaintiff James C. Ebbert, the court-appointed Receiver for the Associated Grocers of

2013 PA Super 22 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellee No. 872 EDA 2012

2013 PA Super 216 DISSENTING OPINION BY PLATT, J.: FILED JULY 29, Wyeth appeals from the order overruling its preliminary objections to

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and

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

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: : Appellee : No MDA 2005

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: MARYANN SUMI, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded.

HSBC Bank USA v Bhatti 2016 NY Slip Op 30167(U) January 29, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 21162/2013 Judge: Robert J.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 21, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Reversed and Remanded

DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) APPELLANT S FACTUM I. STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL

COMPANY OF OHIO, INC.,

WAGE ATTACHMENT: THE INS AND OUTS

mew Doc 2762 Filed 03/08/18 Entered 03/08/18 12:35:47 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CITIBANK, N.A., Plaintiff/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV

Hudson Realty Assoc., LLC v New Generation Hair Desing, Corp 2018 NY Slip Op 33048(U) December 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

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

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

Carlyle, LLC v Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 32476(U) December 15, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge:

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

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS

Follow this and additional works at:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

American Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc. v Munilla Constr. Mgt., LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33264(U) December 13, 2018 Supreme Court, New York

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2015

2013 PA Super 111. Appellees No WDA 2012

Starzpack, Inc. v Terrafina, LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 30651(U) March 16, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Janice A.

M. Slavin & Sons, LTD v Penny Port, LLC 2013 NY Slip Op 32054(U) August 29, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 14AP-102 v. : (M.C. No. 2013CVF-1810)

Corning Credit Union v Spencer 2017 NY Slip Op 30014(U) January 6, 2017 Supreme Court, Steuben County Docket Number: CV Judge: Marianne

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

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

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

v. Docket No Cncv RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS and MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

Case LSS Doc 5 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION MECHANICS LIEN/MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SECTION

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

MOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT

Rosenthal v Quadriga Art, Inc NY Slip Op 33413(U) December 21, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2006 Judge: Barbara R.

Transcription:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA NA, Plaintiff v. PATRICIA L. CLEVENSTINE, Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff: Attorney for Defendant: No. 2008-4139 OPINION AND ORDER " '-,". ;i ::::: :,~-: " C,""_, "--,,"_,,'-.J _,. '. 0 RUEST, J. l:-:j : 0 ~-- LV :::-:J f, Presently before the Court are the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Patricia L. Clevenstine. Oral argument was scheduled for January 23, 2009. Plaintiffs attorney failed to appear. Both parties submitted briefs. After consideration of the parties' briefs, the Court determines the Preliminary Objections of Defendant are SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part. Background Plaintiff initiated this cause of action by filing a Complaint on September 29, 2008. Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint. An Amended Complaint was filed on December 1, 2008. Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to the Amended Complaint. The Complaintarises out of a Capital One credit card allegedly issued to Defendant. Defendant is alleged to be in default on the account for failing to make payment on or about September 9, 2006 and to have accumulated an unpaid balance of $6,108.03.

Discussion I. Failure of a Pleading to Conform to Law or Rule of Court - Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a(2 In a credit card suit, a creditor must "attach the writings which assertedly establish [the creditor's] right to a judgment." Atlantic Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliani, 2003 Pa. Super. 259, 829 A.2d 340, 345 (2003. Defendant maintains Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed because it does not include the writings which form the alleged contractual relationship between the parties and doesn't explain their absence. Plaintiff maintains it has satisfied the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1019(i by attaching a copy of a Customer Agreement to the Complaint. PaRC.P. 1019(i states "when any claim or defense is based upon a writing, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing." Under this rule, written agreements are considered "writings." Plaintiff maintains its claim is based upon the attached Customer Agreement. Defendant maintains this "agreement" is not signed by Defendant and is dated 2002. Plaintiff avers Defendant entered into the agreement with Capital One in 2006. Plaintiff has not attached the relevant writing to establish its claim against Defendant, instead attaching a copy of a Customer Agreement from seven years ago. Plaintiff has not attached Defendant's original credit application or a statement averring that it lacks access to any or all of the relevant writings. The undated and unsigned Customer Agreement, dated 2002, may reflect the terms of the original agreement between Defendant and Capital One, but the unsigned Customer Agreement is insufficient to establish Plaintiffs claim. Plaintiffs Preliminary Objection is SUSTAINED. II. Insufficient Specificity In a Pleading - Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a(3 and 1028(a(4 2

Defendant argues Plaintiff's Complaint is insufficiently specific because it does not meet the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a and (f. Plaintiff maintains it has plead facts with sufficient specificity to allow Defendant to answer the Complaint. In determining sufficiency of the pleadings ina Complaint,the Court will consider "whether the plaintiff's complaint informs the defendant with accuracy and completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought so that he may know without question upon what grounds to make his defense." Rambo v. Greene, 2006 Pa. Super. 231, 906 A.2d 1232, 1236 (2006. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a states that"[t]he material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated ina concise and summary form." Pa.R.C.P. 1019(f states that "[a]verments of time, place and items of special damage shall be specifically stated." Plaintiff avers that Defendant owes $6,108.03 for charges made under a credit agreement with a credit card. The Court has previously held that "[a] defendant is entitled to know the,dates on which individual transactions were made, the amounts therefore and the items purchased to be able to answer intelligently and determine what items he can admit and what he must contest." Remit Corp. v. Miller, 5 Pa. D. & C. 5 th 43 (C.P. Centre 2008; accord Marine Bank v. Orlando, 25 D.&.C.3d 264 (C.P. Erie 1982. Plaintiff has met this requirement by attaching several Capital One monthly billing statements bearing Defendant's name, dating from the opening of the account to the present, and reflecting individual charges and fees. Plaintiff has attached all statements which illustrate how it has arrived at the amount that it claims is due from Defendant. Plaintiff's Preliminary Objection is OVERRULED. 3

III. Motion to Strike I Insufficient Specificity of Pleading - Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a(3 Plaintiff avers Defendant owes a principal sum of $6,108.03 on a book account, and that Defendant owes Plaintiff for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiff also avers that Defendant owes it based on an account stated theory. Defendant maintains this averment is insufficient to plead an account stated cause and, even if it were, an account stated theory is inappropriate in a credit card case. An account stated is "... an account in writing, examined and expressly or impliedly accepted by both parties thereto as distinguished from a simple claim or a mere summary of accounts." Target National Bank/ Target Visa v. Samanez, (C.P. Allegheny 2007; Target National Bank / Target Visa v. Celesti (C.P. Allegheny 2007; P.L.E. 2d Contracts 512, 9-10 (2008. An account stated is appropriate where the parties have an ongoing relationship and the substance of their conversations is averred in the Complaint. Plaintiff has not set forth sufficient facts regarding Defendant's agreement to either the total amount due and it has not set forth facts which show, in addition to alleged receipt of monthly statements without objection, that Defendant has agreed to pay the amount Plaintiff claims is owed. Plaintiff appears to be relying on Defendant's silence to prove acquiescence to an account stated. This is not a permissible use of the account stated. An account stated is more appropriately pled in a situation in which two equal, sophisticated parties have an ongoing business relationship. An account stated theory is not appropriate in a credit card account case. An account stated was traditionally a promise by a debtor to pay a stated amount of money which the parties expressly agreed was owed, in satisfaction of a preexisting 4

debt. 29 Williston on Contracts 4 th 73:55. When a debtor has had an opportunity to scrutinize the account, his or her silence is prima facie evidence of acquiescence in an account stated. Pierce v. Pierce, 199 Pa. 4, 48 A. 689 (1901, but something more than mere acquiescence by failing to take exception to a series of statements of account received in the mail is required to create an account stated. 13 P.L.E.2d Contracts 513 at 11-12 (2009, citing C-E Glass v. Ryan, 70 Pa. D. &. C.2d 251 (C.P. Beaver 1975. An account stated theory may have been appropriate when credit card issuers gave cardholders fixed interest rates and charged very few fees. With the proliferation of credit cards over the past two decades, however, interest rates have varied and fees have increased in number and severity. It is unreasonable to expect the average debtor to understand the changing terms of a Customer Agreement such that he or she can object to any invoice received in a timely manner. For many, the first and only time they will consider what is in the "fine print" is when they fall behind on payments and find themselves in a position like the one in which Defendant now finds herself. Defendant's Preliminary Objection is SUSTAINED. 5

Accordingly the following is entered: ORDER AND NOW, this 30 th day of January, 2009, the following is ORDERED: 1. Defendant Patricia L. Clevenstine's Preliminary Objections I and V are SUSTAINED. 2. Defendant Patricia L. Clevenstine's Preliminary Objection II, III, and IV are OVERRULED. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff shall have twenty (20 days from the date of this Order to file an amended Complaint. BY THE COURT: ~'.~ PameJaA:RlJElStudge. 6