J-S28009-19

2019 PA Super 349

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

DOMUS, INC.

v.

SIGNATURE BUILDING SYSTEMS OF 

PA, LLC 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1547 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered August 2, 2018

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

No(s): 2015 Civil 4440

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.

CONCURRING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 26, 2019

The Majority determines that the lack of a properly authenticated 

judgment is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore cannot be 

waived. I have grave doubts about this determination. Nevertheless, I join 

the Majority based upon our Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Opening of 

Ballot Boxes, Montour County, 718 A.2d 774 (Pa. 1998).

In my view, the insufficient verification is a technicality that can be 

remedied, akin to a pleading that is not verified properly in accordance with 

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1024 (requiring every pleading with an averment of fact outside 

of the record or a denial of fact to contain a verification). This Court deems 

substantial compliance with Rule 1024 to be sufficient. Monroe v. Contract 

Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. Super. 1979). 

This is because “[v]erification is necessary to defend a party against 

spurious allegations; it must not be transformed into an offensive weapon 
J-S28009-19

- 2 -

designed to strike down an otherwise valid petition.” Id. Because 

verification merely is necessary for the protection of the party, this Court 

has rejected the notion that verification is required to invoke the jurisdiction 

of the lower court. Id. at 959 n.5.; see also Rupel v. Bluestein, 421 A.2d 

406, 410 (Pa. Super. 1980) (agreeing that defects in verification to 

pleadings were not jurisdictional); George H. Altof, Inc. v. Spartan Inns 

of America, Inc., 441 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Super. 1982) (holding a court may 

not strike confessed judgment due to a defective verification of a complaint 

and noting that “a defective verification does not affect the jurisdiction of the 

court”).

Nevertheless, I join the Majority’s Opinion based upon Ballot Boxes. 

In that case, which involved an election recount petition, our Supreme Court 

observed there was conflicting authority on whether a lack of verification 

attached to the petition is a fatal defect that deprives a court of common 

pleas of jurisdiction over the petition, or whether the omitted verification is a 

defect that can be remedied by filing an amended petition with a proper 

verification. Ballot Boxes, 718 A.2d at 777. The High Court concluded that 

because the Election Code expressly required recount petitions to be 

verified, “a recount petition not verified in accordance with the statutory 

requirements does not properly invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas 

court and should be dismissed.” Id. Because UEFJA expressly requires a 
J-S28009-19

- 3 -

copy of a foreign judgment to be authenticated, I join the Majority’s Opinion 

based upon the similar issue in Ballot Boxes.

1

 

1 In footnote 7, the Majority opines that this Concurrence is “essentially 

excusing foreign judgments that lack authentication as required by 

§ 4306(b).” Majority Opinion at 13 n.7. That is not the case. Lack of 

authentication is a defect. The musing in my Concurrence posits that such a 

defect should not be jurisdictional and thus not waivable for failure to raise it 

below.