Domus, Inc. v. Signature Bldg. Sys. of PA, LLC

• Citation: 252 A.3d 628
• Decision Date: 22 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 54 MAP 2020,54 MAP 2020
• Parties: DOMUS, INC., Appellant v. SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, Appellee
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

252 A.3d 628

DOMUS, INC., Appellant

v.SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF PA, LLC, Appellee

No. 54 MAP 2020

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: March 10, 2021

Decided: June 22, 2021

Maureen Murphy McBride, Esq., Lamb McErlane, PC, Drew Salaman, Esq., Andrew Philip Stafford, Esq., Imperatrice, Amarant & Bell, P.C., for Appellant.

Michael Robert Mey, Esq., Mey & Sulla, LLP, for Appellee.

BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

We granted discretionary review to consider whether the claim that a foreign judgment was not authenticated under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 4306, implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of Pennsylvania's courts of common pleas and therefore cannot be waived. We hold the failure to authenticate a foreign judgment under UEFJA does not deprive the court of common pleas of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the Superior Court's decision to the contrary and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

Appellant Domus, Inc. (Domus) was involved in a residential construction project at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. As part of its work on the project, Domus entered into a contract with appellee Signature Building Systems of PA, LLC (Signature). The contract called for Signature to provide modular residential units for the project. In addition, Domus separately contracted with PFS Corporation (PFS) to inspect and certify the condition of the units provided by Signature.

Domus filed suit against PFS in New Hampshire on October 17, 2011, alleging the units provided by Signature were defective. PFS filed a motion to add Signature as a defendant via a third-party complaint, which was granted on March 29, 2012. On April 12, 2012, PFS filed an affidavit of service certifying its third-party complaint had been served on Signature. On June 21, 2012, the New Hampshire trial court entered a default notice against Signature with respect to PFS's third-party complaint. On November 28, 2012, counsel for Signature entered appearances in the New Hampshire case, but subsequently withdrew those appearances on January 28, 2013.

On April 19, 2013, Domus filed a motion to file a third-party complaint against Signature in the New Hampshire case, which was granted on May 7, 2013. On July 2, 2013, Domus filed a return of service indicating the third-party complaint had been served on Signature. On July 29, 2013, the New Hampshire trial court declined to issue a default notice with respect to Domus's third-party complaint against Signature. Instead, on September 11, 2013, the New Hampshire trial court ordered Domus to serve Signature again. In addition, the court ordered Signature to file an appearance with the court by December 3, 2013, or be considered in default. On November 5, 2013, Domus filed an affidavit of service certifying its third-party complaint had been served on Signature.

On December 10, 2013, the New Hampshire trial court entered a notice of default against Signature due to its failure to file an appearance. Following a hearing on February 24, 2014, the court entered a final judgment against Signature in the amount of $293,081, plus 2.1% interest accruing from September 11, 2013.

On July 16, 2015, Domus filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, a "Praecipe for Entry of Appearance, Transfer of Judgment, Assessment of Damages and Verification of Addresses, and Non Military Service." Attached to the praecipe were copies of the docket entries and the final judgment against Signature in the New Hampshire proceeding.

The New Hampshire judgment attached to the praecipe filed by Domus was not authenticated pursuant to UEFJA, which provides in pertinent part:

A copy of any foreign judgment including the docket entries incidental thereto authenticated in accordance with act of Congress or this title may be filed in the office of the clerk of any court of common pleas of this Commonwealth. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of any court of common pleas of this Commonwealth. A judgment so filed shall be a lien as of the date of filing and shall have the same effect and be subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of any court of common pleas of this Commonwealth and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.

42 Pa.C.S. § 4306(b) (emphasis added).

The federal law regarding authentication in this context states:

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

28 U.S.C. § 1738. And, the corresponding Pennsylvania law provides:

An official record kept within the United States, or any state, district, commonwealth, territory, insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by a judge of a court of record having jurisdiction in the governmental unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of the court, or by any public officer having a seal of office and having official duties in the governmental unit in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of his office.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). Accordingly, regardless of whether a party is proceeding under federal or Pennsylvania law, authentication under UEFJA requires that a "certificate" accompany the foreign judgment. Federal law requires a certificate from a judge of the court in which the judgment was entered that the attestation of the clerk is in proper form. Pennsylvania law mandates a certificate from a judge or other officer in the originating jurisdiction as to custody of the record. Here, it is undisputed there was no certificate of any kind included with the praecipe filed by Domus.

On August 10, 2015, Signature filed in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas a motion to strike foreign judgment. Signature's motion did not include a specific objection to Domus's failure to file a certificate.¹ Domus filed a timely answer in opposition to Signature's motion to strike. Thereafter, there was extensive discovery and briefing regarding the validity of the New Hampshire judgment, and a hearing was held in July of 2018. Ultimately, on August 2, 2018, the court denied Signature's motion to strike, concluding "the due process notice requirements" with respect to the New Hampshire proceedings "have been satisfied." Order, 08/02/18 at ¶17.

Signature filed a timely notice of appeal. On October 18, 2018, the court of common pleas ordered Signature to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Signature complied with this order, but its Rule 1925(b) statement did not raise the claim that the New Hampshire judgment was not properly authenticated under section 4306(b) of UEFJA.²

Signature's Superior Court brief likewise omitted from the "statement of questions involved" the issue of whether the New Hampshire judgment had been properly authenticated under section 4306(b) of UEFJA. Instead, Signature listed only the issues of whether it received notice of the hearing on damages in New Hampshire, and whether Domus filed a sufficient affidavit in accordance with section 4306(c)(1) :

1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to strike the entry of a foreign judgment from the state of New Hampshire when the docket entries show no notice to appellant of a trial assessing damages?

Suggested answer: YES

2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to strike the foreign judgment entered from deeds in my state [sic] of New Hampshire when there is an insufficient affidavit filed at the time the judgment was transferred?

Suggested answer: YES

Appellant's Brief in Superior Court at 2. However, in the body of its Superior Court brief, Signature argued "[t]he judgement itself has not been authenticated as required by § 4306." Id . at 10; see also id . at 3 ("[T]he judgement should be stricken since it was not certified as required by § 4306 of the Act under either of the two methods permitted: In accordance with an Act of Congress; or, in accordance of [sic] the Statues [sic] of Pennsylvania.").

The Superior Court reversed the common pleas court's decision and struck the judgment against Signature in a published opinion. Bypassing the only two issues raised in Signature's statement of the questions involved, the panel addressed Signature's contention in the body of its brief that Domus failed to provide a properly authenticated judgment under section 4306(b) of UEFJA. Initially, the Superior Court considered Domus's arguments that this issue was waived. As noted infra at n.1, the panel disagreed with Domus's assertion the claim was not raised in the court of common pleas, concluding instead the issue was included in Signature's motion to strike the foreign judgment. However, the panel opined "Domus is correct in observing that Signature neglected to include this issue in its Rule 1925(b) statement." Domus , 224 A.3d at 36 (emphasis in original). While acknowledging this omission would normally result in waiver pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) ("Issues not included in the Statement ... are waived."), the panel declined to find waiver here. The Superior Court reasoned the issue of a properly authenticated foreign judgment "is one of jurisdictional gravity" under its precedent. Id . at 36.

Spe...