Cavalry SPV I, LLC, v. Lori Boyer

Cavalry SPV I, LLC, v. Lori Boyer

Civil Action-Law-Default Judgment-Petition to Open-Timeliness of Petition-Meritorious Defense-Excuse for Failure to Respond

Cavalry SPV I, LLC, (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Lori Boyer (“Defendant”) seeking to collect a debt.  Following Preliminary Objections and lodging of an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff mailed Defendant a notice of intent to file default judgment.  At a subsequent status conference, Defendant asserted that she had not received the Amended Complaint, which later had been served upon Defendant by registered mail.  On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment, at which time a Notice of Default Judgment was mailed to Defendant at the address upon which the original Complaint had been served.  On January, 5, 2024, Defendant filed a Petition to Open Default Judgment. 

1. Pa.R.C.P. Rule 237.3(b)(2) provides that if a petition to open judgment is filed within ten (10) days after the entry of a default judgment upon the docket, the court shall open the judgment if the proposed answer states a meritorious defense.

2.  A court will exercise its discretion to open a judgment if: (1) the petition has been filed promptly; (2) a meritorious defense is shown; and (3) the failure to appear can be excused.

3.  A court is not required to consider whether a defendant pled a meritorious defense where the defendant fails to provide a reasonable excuse or explanation for failing to file a responsive pleading.

4.  The timeliness of a petition to open a judgment is measured from the date when the notice of the entry of the default judgment is received. 

5.  Since Defendant in her Petition to Open Default Judgment indicated that she that she learned of the entry of the judgment on December 11, 2023 and did not file her Petition to Open Judgment until January 5, 2024, Defendant did not file her petition within ten (10) days pursuant to Rule 237.3(b)(2).

6.  Defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse or explanation for failing to file a responsive pleading when asserting that the Amended Complaint was not received, as the Amended Complaint was mailed to the same address as the original Complaint that Defendant received and miscommunication between counsel and/or clerical error does not constitute a reasonable excuse for the failure to respond.   

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2023-00901, Opinion by Charles T. Jones, Jr., Judge, July 2, 2024.