Strausser Enters., Inc. v. Segal & Morel, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 May 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 2380 EDA 2012,J-S08043-13,2380 EDA 2012 |
Parties | STRAUSSER ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant v. SEGAL AND MOREL, INC. and SEGAL AND MOREL AT FORKS TOWNSHIP VII, LLC, Appellees |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Strausser Enterprises, Inc. ("SEI" or "Plaintiff") appeals from the Order denying its Petition to Strike and/or Open ("Petition to strike/open") the judgment entered against it and in favor of Segal and Morel, Inc., and Segal and Morel at Forks Township VII, LLC (collectively "S&M" or "Defendants"). We affirm.
The trial court set forth the relevant underlying facts and procedural history in its Opinion, which we adopt herein by reference. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/12, at 2-4. Contemporaneously with the issuance of its Opinion, the trial court entered an Order denying [SEI's] Petition to strike/open. SEI filed a Motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, SEI timely filed a Notice of appeal. In response, the trial court ordered SEI to file a concise statement of errors complained of onappeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). SEI timely filed a Concise Statement, raising twelve separate claims of trial court error.
On appeal, SEI raises the following issues for our review:
Our standard of review of SEI's claims is well settled:
A petition to strike a judgment raises a question of law and relief thereon will only be granted if a fatal defect appears on the face of the record. Alternatively, a petition to open rests withinthe discretion of the trial court, and may be granted if the petitioner (1) acts promptly, (2) alleges a meritorious defense, and (3) can produce sufficient evidence to require submission of the case to a jury. The decision of the trial court on a petition to strike or open judgment will not be disturbed unless there is an error of law or a manifest abuse of discretion.
Rait P'ship, L.P. v. E Pointe Props. I, Ltd., 957 A.2d 1275, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted).
SEI's first two issues on appeal are closely related, and we will thus address them simultaneously.1 SEI argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration agreements contained in the contracts that formed the basis for the underlying breach of contract action, or to enter judgment against SEI on the arbitration award. See Brief for Appellant at 14, 26. SEI asserts that jurisdiction was lacking because S&M never had standing to enforce the contracts' arbitration provisions, or to assert claims for breach of contract against SEI in the arbitration proceedings, because S&M had assigned its interest in the contracts and was thus not a party to those contracts when this case was initiated. Id. at 26-27, 28. SEI further argues that the judgment must be stricken or opened because it was obtained through fraud; i.e., S&M allegedly had perpetrated a fraud upon SEI and the trial court by failing to disclose that S&M was no longer a party to the contracts in question. Id. at 31-32. Finally, SEI contends that "[t]he remedies employed by [S&M] and the Lower Court were exclusively created by the Act[,]" and "[w]ithout standing under the Act, theLower Court had no subject-matter jurisdiction." Id. at 15, 30. According to SEI, the trial court erred in concluding that the proceedings were not governed by the Act since the arbitration agreements involved in this case allegedly provided for common law arbitration. See id. at 15-18.
In its Opinion, the trial court thoroughly addressed SEI's claims, set forth the applicable law, and determined that these claims lack merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/12, at 4-13. After review of the certified record and the parties' briefs, we find that the sound rationale advanced by the trial court is supported by the record and the law, and we thus affirm on this basis with regard to these issues. See id.
Wilk v. Kochara, 647 A.2d 595, 596-97 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citations omitted).
In the instant case, SEI never asserted that the satisfaction had been obtained due to fraud or mistake. Rather, SEI argues that the judgment was void ab initio, based upon the trial court's purported lack of jurisdiction to enter a judgment against SEI on the arbitration award. See Reply Brief for Appellant at 17. Thus, according to SEI, the general rule regarding the inviolability of satisfied judgments is inapplicable. See id. . However, since we have already determined that the trial court did not lack jurisdiction and the judgment against SEI is not void, SEI's claim in this regard lacks merit.
Brief for Appellant at 33 ( ). SEI points out that the trial court's Rule to show cause explicitly stated that it was to be decided pursuant to the provisions of Rule 206.7. Id. at 36 (citing Rule to Show Cause, 4/25/12, at ¶ 3). According to SEI, S&M's response to the trial court's Rule to show cause raised disputed issues of material fact regarding whether SEI was aware of S&M's assignment of its rights under the contracts at issue and, relatedly, S&M's standing to sue under those contracts. See Brief for Appellant at 33-34, 36. Therefore, SEI asserts, pursuant to the clear language of Rule 206.7(c), it was entitled to conduct discovery on these issues. Id. at 36.
Here, any dispute regarding the issue of S&M's standing was irrelevant, as the trial court determined, as a matter of law, that SEI had waived any challenge to S&M's standing. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/31/12,at 5 . Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying SEI's Petition to strike/open.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
v.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Petition to Strike and/or Open Void Judgment. In its petition, Plaintiff asserts that this Court must strike or open the judgment entered against it and in favor of Defendants, a judgment which has been satisfied, on the grounds of fraud and/or a want of subject matter jurisdiction. The essence of Plaintiff's arguments in support thereof is, first, that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce arbitration agreements contained in the contracts made between the parties or...
To continue reading
Request your trial