J-S31032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

535 PENN INVESTMENTS, LLC 

Appellant

v.

DELAWARE STEEL COMPANY OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 813 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered February 23, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at 

No(s): 2022-04180

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 7, 2023

535 Penn Investments, LLC (“535 Penn”) appeals from the order 

granting Delaware Steel Company of Pennsylvania’s (“Delaware Steel”) 

petition to strike a confession of judgment. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts as follows:

On March 23, 2022, [535 Penn] filed a Complaint for Confession 

of Judgment for Money against [Delaware Steel]. The Complaint 

averred that Delaware Steel had entered into a Lease for 

commercial office space and that a copy of the Lease, together 

with two amendments, was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 

A. It averred that 535 Penn was the assignee of the original

landlord. The Complaint further stated that Delaware Steel failed 

to pay rent when due and, therefore, it was “served” with a Notice 

of Default, a copy of which was attached to the Complaint as 

Exhibit B. Averring that Delaware Steel failed to cure the default, 

the Complaint invoked the warrant of attorney in the Lease and 

confessed judgment against Delaware Steel for the rent due, 

together with attorney fees and costs. Pursuant to the confession

of judgment, the Prothonotary entered judgment in favor of 535 

Penn and against Delaware Steel for $175,370.36.
J-S31032-23

- 2 -

On April 21, 2022, Delaware Steel filed [its] Verified Petition to 

Strike, or Alternatively, to Open Judgment Entered by Confession 

and to Stay Execution. The Petition identified four alleged defects 

in the Complaint to support the request to strike the judgment 

and also set forth allegations of misconduct by 535 Penn to 

support the request to open the judgment. One of the grounds for 

striking the judgment asserted that, on the face of the Complaint 

and its exhibits, 535 Penn’s Notice of Default had failed to comply 

with the notice requirements set forth in the Lease — specifically, 

that the Notice of Default was not sent by a means authorized by 

the Lease, that it was not addressed to the attention of a specified 

individual as required, and that it was not sent to a required copy 

recipient.

Trial Court Opinion, filed May 22, 2023, at 1-2. 

The court granted Delaware Steel’s petition to strike and ordered that 

the confessed judgment be stricken. 535 Penn filed a motion for 

reconsideration, which was denied. This appeal followed. 

535 Penn raises a single issue for our review: “Whether the [t]rial 

[c]ourt erred in granting [Delaware Steel’s] Petition to Strike the Confession 

of Judgment.” 535 Penn’s Br. at 4.

Preliminarily, we consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

“The appealability of an order directly implicates the jurisdiction of the court 

asked to review the order.” Bailey v. RAS Auto Body, Inc., 85 A.3d 1064, 

1067 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). This Court may “inquire at any time, 

sua sponte, whether an order is appealable.” Id. at 1068 (citation omitted).

Generally, an order striking a judgment is not appealable because 

“[s]uch an order anticipates further litigation because the parties are placed 

back in the position they were in prior to the entry of the judgment.” UPS v. 

Hohider, 954 A.2d 13, 16 (Pa.Super. 2008). However, an order striking a
J-S31032-23

- 3 -

judgment is appealable when its effect is to end the existing litigation as to all 

parties and claims. Id. In such a case, “an order is a final order as defined in 

Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) and an appeal may be taken as of right.” Id.

Here, 535 Penn’s complaint only contained a single count seeking a 

confession of judgment and did not include any alternate claims. Notably, the 

court’s order striking the judgment did not contemplate or direct any further 

proceedings. The order thus effectively ended 535 Penn’s confession action.

As a result, the order striking the confession constituted a final order under 

Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) and was immediately appealable as of right. See id.; see 

also Stoltzfus v. Green Line Labs, ___ A.3d ___, 2023 PA Super 179, *2-

3 (filed Sept. 25, 2023) (concluding that order granting petition to strike

confessed judgment that ended all litigation between the parties was a final 

order). Having determined that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant 

appeal, we now address the merits of 535 Penn’s claim.

Generally, “the law does not favor confession of judgment provisions.”

Beckett v. Laux, 577 A.2d 1341, 1347 (Pa.Super. 1990). “Pennsylvania 

courts are fully aware of the possibility of abuse that can arise from judgments 

by confession, so courts are strict in ruling upon their validity.” Dominic’s 

Inc. v. Tony’s Famous Tomato Pie Bar & Restaurant, Inc., 214 A.3d 259, 

271 (Pa.Super. 2019).

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition to strike a confessed 

judgment for an abuse of discretion or error of law. Ferrick v. Bianchini, 69 

A.3d 642, 647 (Pa.Super. 2013).
J-S31032-23

- 4 -

“A petition to strike a judgment is a common law proceeding which 

operates as a demurrer to the record.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Copley 

Qu-Wayne Assocs., 683 A.2d 269, 273 (Pa. 1996) (citation omitted). “A 

petition to strike a judgment may be granted only for a fatal defect or 

irregularity appearing on the face of the record.” Id. (citation omitted). “When 

deciding if there are fatal defects on the face of the record for the purposes of 

a petition to strike a judgment, a court may only look at what was in the 

record when the judgment was entered.” Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning 

Servs., Inc., 700 A.2d 915, 917 (Pa. 1997). “The original record that is 

subject to review in a motion to strike a confessed judgment consists of the 

complaint in confession of judgment and the attached exhibits.” Neducsin v. 

Caplan, 121 A.3d 498, 504 (Pa.Super. 2015).

Here, pursuant to the Lease, which was attached to 535 Penn’s 

complaint in confession of judgment, 535 Penn was required to give notice to 

Delaware Steel in the event of a default for failure to pay rent. An “event of a 

default” of the Lease included:

17.1.1 Tenant does not pay in full when due any installment of

Rent or any other charge or payment whether or not herein 

included as Rent, and such failure to pay is not cured within three 

(3) business days following Tenant’s receipt of notice from

Landlord thereof[.]

Lease at ¶ 17.1.1. (emphasis added). 

535 Penn was thus required to give Delaware Steel notice of a default 

and a three-day opportunity to cure. The Lease specified how “notice” of 

default was to be provided:
J-S31032-23

- 5 -

20. Notices.

All bills, statements, notices or other communications given 

hereunder shall be deemed sufficiently given or rendered only if

in writing and sent to Tenant or Landlord by certified or 

registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, 

or by commercial overnight carrier guaranteeing next 

business day delivery (such as Federal Express or UPS), 

addressed as follows:

If to Tenant: 

DELAWARE STEEL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA

535 Pennsylvania Avenue

Fort Washington, PA 19034

Attention: Jerald Brownstein

If to Landlord:

HUB PROPERTIES TRUST

c/o Reit Management & Research LLC

400 Centre Street

Newton, Massachusetts 02458

Attention: Jennifer B. Clark 

With a copy to:

Reit Management & Research LLC

Management Office

1600 Market Street, 5th floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attention: General Manager

or such other person or place as either party hereto may designate 

by notice given as aforesaid. Notices shall be deemed received as 

of the date of delivery (or refusal of delivery, as the case may be) 

set forth on the return receipt or in the records of the overnight 

carrier.
J-S31032-23

- 6 -

Id. at ¶ 20 (emphasis added). 

535 Penn’s complaint averred that it served Delaware Steel with a notice 

of default by letter dated September 3, 2020. See Complaint at ¶ 8. The letter 

was attached to the complaint as Exhibit B and indicated that it was sent “VIA 

EMAIL AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL” to:

Delaware Steel Company of Pennsylvania

535 Pennsylvania Avenue

Suite 102

Fort Washinton, PA 19034

Attn: Lisa Goldberg, President 

Letter, dated Sept. 3, 2020. It also indicated that it was sent to 

“lisa.goldenberg@delawaresteel.com.” Id.

The court concluded that the notice of default letter sent by 535 Penn 

to Delaware Steel failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in 

the Lease. It found:

[The notice] was sent by email and regular U.S. mail, neither of 

which are authorized by paragraph 20 of the Lease. Rather, 

paragraph 20 requires delivery either by registered or certified 

mail, return receipt requested, or by a commercial next-day 

carrier. Further, the Lease requires that the notice be addressed 

to the attention of Jerald Brownstein, but it was in fact addressed 

to the attention of Lisa Goldberg.

Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6. The court determined that 535 Penn’s failure to comply

with the notice requirements in paragraph 20 of the Lease, and thus of the 

notice-and-opportunity-to-cure provisions in paragraph 17.1.1, was a fatal 
J-S31032-23

- 7 -

defect appearing on the face of the record that required the confessed 

judgment to be stricken. Id. at 6, 8. 

We initially point out that 535 Penn has wholly failed to address the 

issue of improper notice, which was raised in Delaware Steel’s petition to strike 

and formed the entire basis of the trial court’s decision. It instead only argues

that Delaware Steel was a holdover tenant that is liable for holdover rental 

penalties. See 535 Penn’s Br. at 10-12. Such an argument is entirely 

irrelevant to the court’s reasoning for striking the judgment. 

We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to strike the 

judgment. The notice of default clearly failed to comply with the Lease’s notice 

requirements. The notice was addressed to the incorrect person and was not 

sent by certified or registered mail or by commercial overnight carrier as 

required by the express terms of the Lease. Thus, because the notice was 

defective, a fatal defect appeared on the face of the record. See Dominic’s 

Inc., 214 A.3d at 273 (holding that promissory note holder’s failure to plead 

that it had complied with notice and cure provisions of note constituted fatal 

defect requiring judgment of confession to be stricken). Accordingly, the court 

properly struck the confessed judgment. 

Order affirmed. 
J-S31032-23

- 8 -

Date: 12/07/2023