Case Name: Samuel BASSION v. Frances JANCZAK, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1982-05-07
Citations: 299 Pa. Super. 195
Docket Number: No. 331
Parties: Samuel BASSION v. Frances JANCZAK, Appellant.
Judges: Before CERCONE, President Judge, and McEWEN and HOFFMAN, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 299
Pages: 195–199

Head Matter:
445 A.2d 521
Samuel BASSION v. Frances JANCZAK, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Nov. 17, 1981.
Filed May 7, 1982.
Susan V. Edwards, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Abe Lapowsky, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before CERCONE, President Judge, and McEWEN and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Opinion:
McEWEN, Judge:
Appellant contends that the Common Pleas Court erred in dismissing her petition to open a default judgment for her purported failure to file a timely supporting brief in compliance with Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure 302(d).
On April 23, 1979, a confession of judgment was entered on a judgment note in the amount of $20,000 against appellant and Thomas Janczak in favor of appellee. Appellant filed a petition to open judgment on August 7,1980 in which she averred inter alia, that her purported signature on the note was a forgery.
The Common Pleas Court dismissed the petition of appellant to open judgment because of her apparent failure to file, pursuant to Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure 302(d), a supporting brief within thirty days of the date upon which the petition to open judgment was filed. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that she did comply with Rule 302(d) by filing a brief contemporaneously with the petition to open judgment and, thus, the court abused its discretion by dismissing her petition to open judgment. While the record does not reflect that appellant filed a brief with the petition, counsel for appellant stated during the presentation of oral argument that the required brief had been affixed to the petition and filed as part of the petition but that the brief was detached from the petition by the Prothonotary and returned to her office. Through inadvertence on the part of the secretarial staff of the office of counsel for appellant, the fact that the brief was misfiled with the Prothonotary and subsequently returned was not brought to her attention.
There is an arguable basis for the decision of the hearing judge to dismiss the petition to open judgment since appellant failed to comply with Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure 302(d) by (1) failing to make a separate filing of a brief (2) in triplicate (3) with the Court Administrator. On the other hand, the record (1) reflects that the appellant proposes to offer the defense of forgery; (2) reflects that the brief was misfiled rather than not filed; and (3) does not reflect a contention by the appellee that the appellant failed to forward a copy of the brief to the appellee. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 126 suggests that the rules be liberally construed so as to secure a just determination of every action.
We believe that in this specific situation and under these narrow circumstances this objective is better achieved if the appellant is permitted to offer a defense. We are, therefore, compelled to vacate the order of the Common Pleas Court dismissing the petition to open judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction of this case is relinquished.
Order vacated and case remanded.
HOFFMAN, J., files a dissenting opinion.
. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 126. Liberal Construction and Application of Rules. The rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable. The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Adopted May 1, 1939, effective November 6, 1939; amended and effective April 18, 1975.