J-S26033-19

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NORTH POINT I CONDOMINIUM 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O 

CHANCELLOR PROPERTIES, INC. 

Appellant

v.

HARRY BURNEY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2325 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered July 17, 2018

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

No(s): No. 170205509

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED JUNE 27, 2019

North Point I Condominium Owners Association c/o Chancellor 

Properties, Inc. (North Point) appeals from the order of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) striking the judgment by confession 

entered against Harry Burney (Burney). After careful review, we reverse.

We take the factual background and procedural history of this case from 

the trial court’s July 17, 2018 opinion and our review of the certified record. 

North Point is a homeowners’ association that controls condominiums in 

Philadelphia. As a condominium owner, Burney was subject to certain 

assessments, fees and other charges by North Point for its provision of 

benefits and services.
J-S26033-19

- 2 -

On April 18, 2015, Burney entered into an agreement with North Point 

for payment of condominium fees for common expenses that had fallen into 

arrears (Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement contains a

confession of judgment clause to be enforced by North Point should Burney 

be in breach.

On February 21, 2017, Burney breached the Settlement Agreement and 

North Point filed a Complaint in Confession of Judgment against him. On 

February 14, 2018, North Point filed a Writ of Execution. On July 7, 2018,

Burney filed a Motion for Stay of Execution that did not dispute the amounts 

due or his breach.

On July 17, 2018, after a hearing on Burney’s Motion, the trial court 

struck the confessed judgment based on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 

2950 dealing with confession of judgments. That Rule precludes judgment by 

confession in any “action” involving a consumer credit transaction. Rule 2950 

provides:

As in this chapter ‘action’ means a proceeding to enter a judgment 

by confession for money pursuant to an instrument, other than 

an instrument executed by a natural person in connection 

with a consumer credit transaction, authorizing such 

confession.[

1]

____________________________________________

1 The Official Note to the Rule provides that the “[t]he [confession of 

judgment] action is abolished insofar as it would apply to a confession of 

judgment which is part of an instrument executed in connection with a 

consumer credit transaction.”
J-S26033-19

- 3 -

Pa.R.C.P. 2950 (emphasis added). A “consumer credit transaction” is defined 

as credit transaction where credit is extended to a person for services that are 

primarily for personal, family or household purposes:

a credit transaction in which the party to whom credit is offered 

or extended is a natural person and the money, property or 

services which are the subject of the transaction are 

primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

Id. (emphasis added).

In finding that condominium fees for common expenses were a 

“consumer credit transaction” within the meaning of the Rule, the trial court 

went on to state:

. . . [T]he Rules of Civil Procedure specifically instruct that 

judgment by confession may not be entered against a natural 

person in connection with a consumer credit transaction. Here, 

[North Point] has filed on one hand an affidavit of non-consumer 

transaction, yet, on the other, has admitted that the instant 

judgment arises out of [] Burney’s “failure . . . to pay homeowner 

dues and assessments.” (See Response in Opposition to Petition 

to Stay Execution, at ¶ 1). This admission convinces the court 

that judgment was entered by confession in connection with a 

consumer credit transaction: this is particularly so considering 

that the condominium unit involved in the instant matter is located 

at the same address identified in the complaint as the residence 

of [Burney]. The court reaches this conclusion because payment 

of condominium fees is primarily personal in nature and related to 

family and household purposes. In conclusion, the judgment 

entered by confession is fatally flawed and thus void because the 

judgment was filed upon an instrument which had been executed 

by a natural person in connection with a consumer transaction. 

Since the judgment is void, the court lacks jurisdiction over the 

matter, and the judgment is stricken on the court’s own motion.

(Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/18, at 4) (footnotes omitted). North Point filed a 

Motion for Reconsideration that the trial court denied and this timely appeal
J-S26033-19

- 4 -

followed.

2

 The central issue in this appeal is whether condominium fees are 

“consumer credit transactions.”

On appeal, among other issues, North Point contends that because 

condominium fees assessed for common expenses are not “consumer credit 

transactions,” the trial court erred in striking the judgment by confession.

Whether a common expense is a “consumer credit transaction” is determined 

for what purpose the common expense was assessed as well as whether credit 

was extended.

Section 3103 of the Uniform Condominium Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 3103, 

defines what are condominium fees for common expenses as follows:

“Common expenses.” Expenditures made or liabilities incurred 

by or on behalf of the association, together with any allocations to 

reserves, including general common expenses and limited 

common expenses.

“Common expense liability.” The liability for common 

expenses allocated to each unit pursuant to section 3208 (relating 

to allocation of common element interests, votes and common 

expense liabilities).

42 Pa.C.S. § 3103 (emphasis added). As can be seen, the expense is allocated 

to each “unit.” Section 3101 defines unit and unit owner as follows:

“Unit.” A portion of the condominium designated for separate 

ownership, the boundaries of which are described pursuant to 

section 3205(4) (relating to contents of declaration; all 

condominiums).

____________________________________________

2 We review a court’s order striking a judgment for an abuse of discretion or 

error of law. See Knickerbocker Russell Co., Inc. v. Crawford, 936 A.2d 

1145, 1147 (Pa. Super. 2007).
J-S26033-19

- 5 -

“Unit owner.” A declarant who owns a unit, a person to whom 

ownership of a unit has been conveyed, or a lessee of a unit in a 

leasehold condominium whose lease expires simultaneously with 

any lease the expiration or termination of which will remove the 

unit from the condominium. “Unit owner” does not include a 

person having an interest in a unit solely as security for an 

obligation.

42 Pa.C.S. § 3101.

In turn, Section 3314(b) of the Uniform Condominium Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 

3314(b), provides, in pertinent part, that:

common expenses shall be assessed against all the units in 

accordance with the common expense liability allocated to each 

unit (section 3208) in the case of general common expenses and 

in accordance with subsection (c) in the case of special allocations 

of expenses. Any past due assessment or installment thereof shall 

bear interest at the rate established by the association not 

exceeding 15% per year.

42 Pa.C.S. § 3314(b).

Based on those definitions, common expenses do not fall within the 

definition of consumer credit transactions for several reasons. First, common 

expenses are not household expenses or personal expenses but akin to private 

taxes that are assessed in rem against the unit regardless of whether the unit 

owner lives there or not. Second, common expenses do not involve the 

extension of credit by the condominium association to the unit owner. When 

the common expense liability is allocated, the unit owner is required to make 

payment when due, just like when real estate taxes are imposed. And just 

like real estate taxes, when not paid when due, interest can be imposed.
J-S26033-19

- 6 -

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred in 

striking off the Confession of Judgment on the basis that the condominium 

fees were a credit transaction and, accordingly, we reverse the order of the 

trial court.

Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/27/19