A Pennsylvania state Appeals Court has affirmed the denial of a consumer’s petition to open a default judgment entered in a debt buyer’s collection lawsuit, ruling that the defenses he offered were too generic to justify reopening the case.
The background: The dispute began when the plaintiff, a debt buyer, sued to collect on an account the defendant had opened with a lender in April 2022.
- The plaintiff, which had been assigned the account, demanded $7,230.40 plus costs and served the defendant with the complaint and a notice to defend.
- The defendant did not respond, and he also ignored a later notice that the plaintiff intended to seek a default judgment. The court then entered a default judgment of $7,722.91 against him.
- About a week later, the defendant, now represented by counsel, filed a petition to open the judgment. He referenced his proposed answer as an exhibit but then “apparently forgot to attach it,” and the trial court denied the petition the next day.
- The defendant filed a second, otherwise identical petition with the answer attached. The trial court denied that one as well, and he appealed.
The ruling: The Appeals Court affirmed, though it disagreed with much of the trial court’s reasoning along the way.
- The court first rejected the conclusion that the appeal was untimely, finding the second petition was a proper response to the denial rather than a request to reconsider it.
- It also held the trial court should not have rejected the first petition simply because the answer was missing, noting the rules exist to help parties who move quickly and that courts should not lean on technicalities to defeat seemingly valid claims.
- Even so, the defendant came up short on the merits. To reopen a default judgment, a party must act within ten days and state a real defense in precise and specific terms, not merely claim to have one.
- The defendant argued the plaintiff lacked a clear chain of ownership, that vague dates undercut the breach of contract claim, that the amount was miscalculated, and that no binding agreement existed. The court found each point refuted by the complaint and its attachments, which included a signed verification, a promissory note the defendant had signed, a bill of sale, and an account file listing the origination date, charge-off date, and balance.
- The court described the defendant’s pleading as “a laundry list of boilerplate defenses, completely devoid of any supporting facts,” and said his petition already amounted to “a second (or third) chance” after he repeatedly failed to respond.
- Notably, the plaintiff prevailed even though it never filed an appellate brief, a lapse the court flagged with disapproval.
