J-S21024-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DEUTSCHE NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 

AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERIQUEST

MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC. ASSET 

BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES 

SERIES 2005-R4

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

THOMAS MEISTER

Appellant No. 2090 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order June 26, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Civil Division at No(s): 13-1582

BEFORE: BOWES, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2015

Thomas Meister appeals from an order denying his petition to strike a 

default judgment entered against him in this ejectment action. We affirm.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Ameriquest 

Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 

2005-R4 (“the Bank”), commenced this action in ejectment by filing a 

complaint on February 20, 2013 concerning Meister’s property located at 23 

Chester Avenue, Clifton Heights, Delaware County, Pennsylvania 19018 

(“the Property”). After the Sheriff made several unsuccessful attempts to 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S21024-15

- 2 -

serve Meister, the Bank moved for and obtained an order permitting special 

service by certified and regular mail to Appellant’s last known address and 

by posting at the Property by the Sheriff. On July 13, 2013, the Property 

was posted, and on July 25, 2013, the Bank filed a certification of service 

affirming that it served the complaint by certified and regular mail on July 

13, 2013. On August 22, 2013, the Bank filed a praecipe for entry of default 

judgment due to Meister’s failure to answer the complaint. The Bank 

attached a ten-day notice of intent to enter a default judgment that it mailed 

to Meister on August 8, 2013. 

The Bank commenced execution proceedings, but on the eve of the 

scheduled January 29, 2014 ejectment, Meister filed an emergency motion 

to stay the ejectment, claiming that the Bank’s complaint in ejectment was 

defective for failure to attach a sheriff’s deed poll. Following a hearing on 

January 29, 2014, the court denied the emergency motion. On February 4, 

2014, the Bank filed a praecipe to re-issue the writ of possession.

On April 9, 2014, Meister filed a motion to strike the default judgment, 

claiming again that the Bank’s complaint was defective for failure to attach a 

sheriff’s deed poll. On June 26, 2014, the court denied the motion to strike. 

This timely appeal followed. Both Meister and the trial court complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Meister raises a single issue in this appeal: “When a sheriff’s deed poll 

is not appended to an ejectment plaintiff’s complaint, should the Court of 
J-S21024-15

- 3 -

Common Pleas be reversed per its denial of Defendant’s motion to strike 

default Judgment when the complaint is void ab initio by failure of that 

appendment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1054(b)?”

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

operates as a demurrer to the record. The court may grant a petition to 

strike only for a fatal defect or irregularity appearing on the face of the 

record. An order of the court striking a judgment annuls the original 

judgment and the parties are left as if no judgment had been entered.” 

Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Servs., 700 A.2d 915, 917 (Pa.1997). 

Also, “[w]hen 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.” Id. at 917; 

Brooks v. B & R Touring Co., 939 A.2d 398, 400 (Pa.Super.2007). 

This Court reviews the trial court’s decision to deny a petition to strike 

to determine whether the record was sufficient to sustain the judgment. 

Hazer v. Zabala, 26 A.3d 1166, 1169 (Pa.Super.2011). 

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1054(b) provides: “A party shall set forth in the complaint 

or answer an abstract of the title upon which the party relies at least from 

the common source of the adverse titles of the parties.” According to 

Meister, this provision required the Bank to attach a sheriff’s deed poll as an 

exhibit to its complaint. We disagree. An “abstract of title” is “simply a 

compilation in an abridged form of the record of the vendor’s title; it is a 
J-S21024-15

- 4 -

summary of the most important parts of the deeds and other instruments 

comprising the evidences of title, arranged in chronological order, and 

intended to show the original source and incidents of title.” Busin v. 

Whiting, 535 A.2d 1078, 1080 (Pa.Super.1987), reversed on different 

grounds, 570 A.2d 508 (Pa.1989).1 Therefore, if the plaintiff’s abstract 

reveals a defect in his chain of title, he will not have established a prima 

facie title, without which his claim must fail; the defendant need prove 

nothing. Id. 

The first three paragraphs of the Bank’s complaint recite a perfectly 

satisfactory “abstract of title”. Paragraph 1 avers that Meister obtained title 

to the Property from Charles and Vesta Meister by deed dated August 7, 

1979 and recorded by the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds on August 8, 

1979 in Deed Book 2544, page 190. Paragraph 2 avers that the Sheriff sold 

the Property to the Bank on November 16, 2012 in execution of a judgment 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County at No. 2007-

4521. Paragraph 3 avers that the Bank claims title to the Property by 

sheriff’s deed recorded by the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds on 

December 26, 2012 at Instrument No. 2012081509, Book 5242, Page 1510. 

The complaint incorporates this deed by reference in accordance with 

____________________________________________

1 The Supreme Court reversed and remanded our decision in Busin on the 

ground that the trial court improperly entered summary judgment in favor of 

a nonmoving party. This decision does not affect our definition in Busin of 

an “abstract of title”.
J-S21024-15

- 5 -

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(g). See id. (“a party may incorporate by reference ... any 

matter which is recorded or transcribed verbatim in the ... office of the ... 

recorder of deeds ... of such county”). These averments collectively set forth 

a chain of title extending back to the source of Meister’s title. In the words 

of Busin, these averments “summar[ize] the most important parts of the 

deeds and other instruments comprising the evidences of title, arranged in 

chronological order, and intended to show the original source and incidents 

of title.” Id., 535 A.2d at 1080. Thus, the abstract of title in the complaint 

is satisfactory under both Rule 1054(b) and Busin.

Meister’s brief provides no authority for the proposition that the 

plaintiff must attach a sheriff’s deed poll in order to comply with Rule 

1054(b). To the contrary, the authorities discussed above demonstrate that 

the plaintiff need only set forth a satisfactory abstract of title in its 

complaint. The Bank’s complaint met this requisite. 

For these reasons, the trial court properly denied Meister’s motion to 

strike the judgment in this ejectment action.

Order affirmed.2

____________________________________________

2 On March 17, 2015, we granted Meister leave to file a reply brief within 

fourteen days. This deadline expired on March 31, 2015 without receipt of 

any reply brief from Meister. We will not delay our disposition of this case 

any further.
J-S21024-15

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/27/2015