Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, v. $16,986.00 U.S. Currency

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, v. $16,986.00 U.S. Currency

Civil Action-Law-Forfeiture-Currency-Controlled Substance Delivery-Default Judgment-Failure to Respond to Motion-Petition to Strike-Form of Pleading-Pro Se Litigant Pleading

Angel Vicente filed a Petition to Strike Default Judgment entered that had granted the Commonwealth’s Motion for Forfeiture of $16,986.00 in currency that was in Vicente’s possession alleged to have been related to drug trafficking.

1.  A petition to strike a judgment may be granted only for a fatal defect or irregularity appearing on the face of the record.

2.  A fatal defect on the face of the record denies the prothonotary of the authority to enter judgment. 

3.  Timeliness of a petition to strike is not a factor where the underlying judgment is void.

4.  Pro se status confers no special benefit upon a litigant.

5.  Courts liberally may construe materials filed by pro se litigants.

6.  Where Angel Vicente filed a document that clearly set forth defenses to the allegations in the Motion for Forfeiture, the filing constituted an Answer to the Motion for Forfeiture despite the fact that it was not set forth in numbered paragraphs in response to the Motion rendering the entry of default judgment to be a fatal defect upon the fact of the record. 

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2023-01164, Opinion by John C. Tylwalk, President Judge, March 4, 2025. 

                        IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                            PENNSYLVANIA

                                                            CIVIL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      :           NO. 2023-01164

                                                                                    :

            v.                                                                     :

                                                                                    :

$16,986.00 U.S. CURRENCY                                   :

                                                            ORDER OF COURT

            AND NOW, this 4^th day of March, 2025, upon consideration of Claimant Angel Vicente’s Petition to Strike Default Judgment, the evidence adduced at the hearing conducted on September 3, 2024, and the record of this matter, it is hereby Ordered that said Petition is GRANTED.  The parties are directed to proceed with the statutory and procedural rules applicable to this forfeiture action.

                                                                        BY THE COURT:

                                                                        ___________________________, P.J.

                                                                        JOHN C. TYLWALK

JCT/jah

Cc:  Andrew J. Jarbola, IV, Esquire/6400 Flank Drive, Suite 1300/Harrisburg, PA 

           17112

        Angel Vicente/Dauphin County Prison/501 Mall Road/Harrisburg, PA  17111

        Judith Huber, Esquire/Law Clerk

                        IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY

                                                            PENNSYLVANIA

                                                            CIVIL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,         :           NO. 2023-01164

                                    Plaintiff                                   :

            v.                                                                     :

                                                                                    :

$16,986.00 U.S. CURRENCY,                                  :

                                    Defendant                               :

APPEARANCES:

ANDREW J. JARBOLA, IV, ESQUIRE               FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

SENIOR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

ANGEL VICENTE                                                  SRL

CLAIMANT

OPINION, TYLWALK, P.J., MARCH 4, 2025.

            On September 8, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a Petition for Forfeiture and Condemnation for $16,986.00 U.S. Currency which was seized by Pennsylvania State Police on September 10, 2021 in North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County.  The Petition alleges that the currency was related to drug trafficking and was in the possession of Claimant Angel Vicente at that time.  The cover page of the Petition provided, in part:

TO THE CLAIMANT OF WITHIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY:  YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THIS PETITION, SETTING FORTH YOUR TITLE IN, AND RIGHT TO POSSESSION OF, SAID PROPERTY WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE SERVICE HEREOF, AND YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED THAT, IF YOU FAIL TO FILE SAID ANSWER, A DECREE OF FORFEITURE AND CONDEMNATION WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST SAID PROPERTY.          

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW.  THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

                                    Mid-Penn Legal Services

                                    513 Chestnut Street

                                    Lebanon, PA  17042

                                    (717) 274-2834

(Petition for Forfeiture and Condemnation)

            On October 26, 2023, Claimant filed a document in which he alleged, in part:

I am writing (sic) to you in response to the notice of Judgment/Forfeiture that I received … .  As you may already be aware that I am currently incarcerated at Dauphin County Prison.  …

…  I would like you to know that I object to having he $16,986.00 U.S. Currency forfeited.  Due to the fact that this currency has been legally obtained.  …

With this being said I have documents and other forms as tax files, bank statements and my online sales of merchandise legally sold to prove and show where this $16,986.00 U.S. currency has been obtained. 

(Claimant’s Response to Notice to Enter Default Judgment, filed 10/26/23)

            On November 2, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a Motion for Order of Forfeiture, which was dated October 26, 2023.  That Motion indicated that the Petition for Forfeiture was served on Claimant on September 14, 2023.  The Motion further stated that Claimant had failed to file an Answer within thirty days of September 14, 2023 as required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. 5805(a)(2)(i) and sought an Order declaring that the currency was forfeited.  In its Motion, the Commonwealth indicated that a Notice of Intention to Enter Default Judgment/Forfeiture Order Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 237.1 had been mailed to Claimant on October 16, 2023. The Notice of Intent to Enter Default Judgment included the following language:

YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU.  UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS.

(Motion For Order of Forfeiture, Exhibit No. 2)

            On November 7, 2023, we entered an Order granting the Commonwealth’s Motion for Order of Forfeiture which provided, in part:

            All claims of right, title and interest of Angel Vicente in the above-captioned defendant/property are hereby declared to be terminated, revoked, and rendered null and void.  The $16,986.00 U.S. currency is hereby declared to be forfeited to the Office of Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, … .

(Order entered November 7, 2023)  The record reflects that this Order was mailed to Claimant at the Dauphin County Prison on November 22, 2023.^[1] 

            On June 26, 2024, Claimant filed a Petition to Strike Default Judgment asserting the existence of fatal defects regarding the validity of the default judgment which were apparent on the face of the record.  Claimant alleged that he was served with the Notice of Intent to Seek Default Judgment on October 16, 2023, that he mailed his objection to the entry of default judgment on October 24, 2023, and that the objection had cured the default as per the ten-day period permitted by the Commonwealth’s Notice of Intent to Enter Default Judgment when the response was filed on October 26, 2023.  On July 29, 2024, the Commonwealth filed an Answer to the Petition to Strike Default Judgment and New Matter.

            We conducted a hearing on Claimant’s Petition to Strike the default judgment on September 3, 2024.  At the hearing, Claimant testified that he had been incarcerated in Dauphin County Prison since October 2022.  He received the Petition for Forfeiture on September 14, 2023 while he was in prison.  He made numerous attempts to secure legal representation, but was unable to obtain counsel.  He confirmed that he received the Notice of Intent to Enter Default Judgment on October 16, 2023.  He explained that he was objecting to the forfeiture because the currency had been obtained legally.  Claimant admitted that he had failed to file a response to the Petition for Forfeiture within thirty days due to his inability to obtain counsel.  However, based on the language included in the Notice of Intent to Enter Default Judgment, he believed that he had ten days to cure the default.  The document he filed on October 26, 2023 was intended to be his response to the Notice of Intent to Seek Default Judgment. Due to his incarceration, he had to mail his filings to the Prothonotary of Lebanon County. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, we directed that a transcript be prepared and the matter is now before us for disposition.

[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.

Estate of McFadden v. McFadden, 305 A.3d 1092, 1094 (Pa. Super. 2023) (quoting Grady v. Nelson, 286 A.3d 259, 264 (Pa. Super. 2022)).

“[T]imeliness is not a factor where the underlying judgment is void, and petitions to strike void judgments are granted regardless of any delay.” Erie Ins. Co. v. Bullard, 839 A.2d 383, 388 (Pa. Super. 2003). Nevertheless, we emphasize:

It is well-settled that in considering the merits of a petition to strike, the court is limited to “a review of only the record as filed by the party in whose favor the warrant is given…. Matters dehors the record … will not be considered. If the record is self-sustaining, the judgment will not be stricken.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Copley Qu-Wayne Associates, 683 A.2d 269, 273 (Pa. 1996). 

Rule 237.1 Notice of Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros for

Failure to File Complaint or by Default for Failure to Plead

(a)(1) As used in this rule,

“judgment by default” means a judgment entered by praecipe pursuant to Rules 1037(b), 1511(a), 3031(a) and 3146(a).

(2) No judgment …  by default for failure to plead shall be entered by the prothonotary unless the praecipe for entry includes a certification that a written notice of intention to file the praecipe was mailed or delivered:

(ii) in the case of a judgment by default, after the failure to plead to a complaint and at least ten days prior to the date of the filing of the praecipe to the party against whom judgment is to be entered and to the party’s attorney of record, if any.

The ten-day notice period in subdivision …  (a)(2)(ii) shall be calculated forward from the date of the mailing or delivery, in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 107.

…

(3) A copy of the notice shall be attached to the praecipe.

(4) The notice and certification required by this rule may not be waived.

Note: A certification of notice is a prerequisite in all cases to the entry by praecipe …  by default for failure to plead to a complaint. Once the ten-day notice has been given, no further notice is required by the rule even if the time to file the complaint or to plead to the complaint has been extended by agreement.

…

(b) This rule does not apply to a judgment entered

• by an order of court,

Pa.R.C.P. No. 237.1(a)(1)-(4), (b)(1).

            In its Answer to the Petition to Strike, the Commonwealth points out that Claimant’s filing is not divided into separate paragraphs and does not correspond with or admit or deny the allegations set forth in the numbered paragraphs of the Commonwealth’s Petition for Forfeiture.  Thus, the Commonwealth argues that Claimant’s October 26, 2023 filing does not qualify as an Answer filed in response to the Petition for Forfeiture as it does not comply with Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.2 which requires that an answer state the material facts which constitute the defense to a petition and be divided into consecutively-numbered paragraphs which correspond to the paragraphs of the petition.  Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.2.  The Commonwealth further argues that it cannot be considered a preliminary objection as it is not based on the grounds set forth in Rule 1028(a)(1)-(8).^[2]

            Pro se status confers no special benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become a litigant’s counsel or find more in a written pro se submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading; however, courts may liberally construe material filed by a pro se litigant.  Kozicki v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 299 A.3d 1055 (Pa. Commw. 2023).   Moreover, courts have long-recognized “the statutory and rule-based emphasis on substance over form,” Giovagnoli v. State Civil Service Commission (Monroe County Children & Youth Services), 868 A.2d 393, 399 (Pa. 2005), and the axiom that the substance of a pleading is controlling in determining the application of pleading requirements. See Ditch v. Waynesboro Hospital, 917 A.2d 317, 321 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

We reject the Commonwealth’s argument and find that Claimant’s October 26, 2023 filing constitutes an Answer to the Commonwealth’s Petition for Forfeiture.  The filing clearly sets forth Claimant’s defense to the Commonwealth’s allegations that the currency was obtained through drug trafficking.   Claimant states that the currency was obtained legally and indicates that he has appropriate documentation to support that defense. 

            The Commonwealth further argues that even if Claimant’s October 26, 2023 filing was considered an answer or preliminary objection, it was still untimely as Claimant did not file an Answer to the Petition for Forfeiture within thirty days as required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5805(a)(2)(i).  The Commonwealth explains that because it sought default judgment pursuant to its Motion for Order of Forfeiture, it was not required to provide Claimant with the Notice of Intent to Seek Default Judgment because Pa.R.C.P. No. 237.1 only requires such notice when judgment is to be entered by the prothonotary and the requirement of a notice “does not apply to a judgment entered by an order of court” under Pa.R.C.P. No. 237.1(b)(1). 

            We also reject this argument.  It is true that the Commonwealth was not required to provide a notice of its intention to enter default judgment when it sought the entry of the default judgment by a court order pursuant to Rule 237.1(b)(1).  However, the Commonwealth had elected to proceed in accordance with Rule 237.1(a) and provide Claimant with a ten-day period to cure the default when it mailed the Notice to Claimant with this language.  Claimant acted in accordance with the Commonwealth’s directive.  The Commonwealth cannot rescind its election to proceed in that manner at this juncture of the proceedings. 

            In conclusion, we find that the entry of the default judgment after Claimant filed a timely response to the Notice of Intent to Enter Default Judgment provided by the Commonwealth is a fatal defect which is apparent on the face of the record of this matter.  Thus, we will grant Claimant’s Petition to Strike the default judgment and direct the parties to proceed in accordance with the procedural and statutory rules applicable to this forfeiture action.

---

[1] Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 440(b), “service by mail of legal papers other than original process is complete upon mailing.”)

[2] Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(1)-(8) sets forth the grounds which may form the basis for a preliminary objection.