Harris v. Harris
| Decision Date | 15 March 1968 |
| Citation | 239 A.2d 783,428 Pa. 473 |
| Parties | , 5 UCC Rep.Serv. 148 Millie HARRIS, a/k/a Millie B. Harris, Appellant, v. Joe HARRIS, First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co., Adal Corp., Nitram, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation and Eleanor Meyers. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert H. Arronson, H. H. Hadra, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Leonard Spear, Philadelphia, Michael F. Walsh, Meranze, Katz, Spear & Bielitsky, Philadelphia, for appellees.
Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
This is an appeal from the decree of the court below sustaining appellee's (Nitram, Inc.) preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to appellant's cause of action in equity.
The record discloses the following pertinent facts: On March 5, 1965, First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co. confessed judgment against appellant and her husband on a judgment note apparently signed by the parties and dated September 15, 1963. Damages were assessed and judgment was then entered in favor of First Pennsylvania in the amount of $168.08. The judgment was subsequently marked to the use of Adal Corp. Execution proceedings were then commenced against the premises in question, which premises were owned by appellant and her husband as tenants by the entireties.
Appellee purchased the premises at sheriff's sale. Immediately upon learning that the premises had been sold, 1 appellant filed a petition and a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened, alleging that her signature on the judgment note was a forgery. The rule to show cause was made absolute.
Thereafter, appellant instituted the present action in equity seeking to set aside the sheriff's sale and to compel appellee to account for all monies received from the use of the premises. Appellee filed preliminary objections to the complaint alleging that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The court below sustained the preliminary objections and this appeal followed.
We are required to determine whether an execution sale on a judgment procured as a result of a forged signature on a judgment note passes good title to property sold thereunder to a bona fide purchaser for value. Whether title will pass at an execution sale depends upon the validity of the underlying judgment. If the execution sale was based upon a voidable judgment, a bona fide purchaser will be protected against actions seeking to recover the purchased property. On the other hand, where a void judgment is the basis for an execution sale, one who purchases property will not acquire title even if a bona fide purchaser for value. See 33 C.J.S. Execution §§ 6, 230, 299a (1942); Restatement, Judgments § 115, comment j (1942) and Pennsylvania Annotations; 3 American Law of Property §§ 13.1, 18.60 (1952).
We are therefore confronted with the narrow issue of whether a judgment which has been procured by a forged signature on a judgment note is void or voidable. The court below, in sustaining appellee's preliminary objections, concluded that a judgment based on a forged instrument is merely voidable and consequently will not hamper the passage of good title to one considered a bona fide purchaser for value. We disagree. The cases are legion, at least with respect to negotiable instruments, that a forged, fraudulent and spurious instrument is not binding on any person and is wholly inoperative to transfer any title or right to property whether the holder is an innocent or guilty purchaser. 2 Johnson v. First National Bank of Beaver Falls, 367 Pa. 459, 81 A.2d 95 (1951); Lindsley v. First National Bank of Philadelphia, 325 Pa. 393, 190 A. 876 (1937); Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co. v. United Security Trust...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Funches
...B.R. 812 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (bench verdict is too procedurally indefinite to be accorded preclusive effect). 36. See Harris v. Harris, 428 Pa. 473, 239 A.2d 783, 784-85 (1968); Smith v. Markland, 223 Pa. 605, 72 A. 1047, 1055-56 (1909); Flitcraft v. Commonwealth Title Ins. & Trust Co., 211 Pa. ......
-
Bennett v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Assoc. (In re Bennett)
...(Compl.¶ 61).7 If the 1st Deed Transfer was a void transaction, the 1st Mortgage would be invalid. See generally Harris v. Harris, 428 Pa. 473, 239 A.2d 783, 784–85 (1968) (transfer based on forged deed cannot pass title, even to a good faith purchaser); see also Bennerson v. Small, 842 F.2......
-
IN RE FOWLER
...If Rauso obtained void title, he had no title to pass on to the Downstream Title Defendants. See generally, Harris v. Harris, 428 Pa. 473, 239 A.2d 783, 784-85 (1968) (transfer based on forged deed cannot pass title, even to a good faith purchaser); accord Bennerson v. Small, 842 F.2d 710, ......
-
Lee v. 6209 Mkt. St., LLC (In re Lee)
...to a sheriff's sale due to unpaid taxes. Defendant purchased the Properties at tax sales in 2015 and 2017.Relying on Harris v. Harris, 428 Pa. 473, 239 A.2d 783 (1968), Plaintiffs argue that the original transfer of the Properties was void as a forgery and that any subsequent transfers of t......