Title: Federman v. Pozsonyi
Citation: 365 Pa. Super. 324, 529 A.2d 530
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: August 7, 1987

365 Pa. Superior Ct. 324 (1987) 529 A.2d 530 Jay L. FEDERMAN, M.D. v. Jeffrey POZSONYI, Appellant. Jay L. FEDERMAN, M.D. v. Jeffrey POZSONYI and Joseph M. Krause. Appeal of Joseph M. KRAUSE. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued June 25, 1987. Filed August 7, 1987. *326 Julia B. Passyn, Philadelphia, for appellants. Philip Colicchio, Philadelphia, for appellee. Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and MCEWEN and TAMILIA, JJ. TAMILIA, Judge: These are consolidated appeals from the April 13, 1987 Order of the lower court which denied appellant Jeffrey Pozsonyi's petition to open and/or strike judgment by confession and also from the May 5, 1987 Order of the court below which denied Pozsonyi's request for a stay of the April 13th Order pending appeal. On January 1, 1983, appellee/lessor and Pozsonyi entered into a twenty-year residential lease for the rental of an apartment at 2000 Delancey Place, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The lease specifically prohibited assignments or subleasing without the written consent of the lessor. On August 26, 1986, appellee filed a Complaint in Confession of Judgment for Possession of Real Property and Ejectment alleging Pozsonyi had violated and breached the terms of the lease agreement by: (Record at 4.) Appellee bases his right to a Confession of Judgment on page 3, paragraph 17, of the lease which provides: (Record, Exhibit D-2.) On August 29, 1986, appellant Pozsonyi filed a petition to strike and/or open the confessed judgment. By Order dated April 13, 1987, the lower court denied the petition. As defenses to the action, appellant argued: (1) confession of judgment is not available for possession of residential real property, (2) the pleadings filed with the Prothonotary in Confession of Judgment are improper and (3) all rental payments have been made. The lower court responded to these allegations as follows: (Slip Op., Lehrer, J., 4/13/87, pp. 2-3.) On May 5, 1987, the lower court also denied appellant Pozsonyi's request for a stay pending appeal. Appellant Joseph Krause now appeals from that Order and appellant Pozsonyi appeals from the April 13, 1987 Order denying his petition to open. Appellant Pozsonyi contends the lower court erred in refusing to open the confessed judgment because: Preliminarily, we find appellant has waived the issues concerning appellee's lack of "good faith", standing and compliance with the Philadelphia Code as they were not preserved below. Appellant has also failed to preserve his contention that confession of judgment was improperly entered as issues remain which should have been presented *329 to the jury. Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302; Trident Corporation v. Reliance Insurance Company, 350 Pa.Super. 142, 504 A.2d 285 (1986). As to appellant's remaining arguments, our scope of review is quite narrow. Appellate review of a trial court's grant or denial of a petition to open a confessed judgment is limited to determining whether the court committed an error of law or manifestly abused its discretion. Lambakis v. Exar, 340 Pa.Super. 483, 490 A.2d 882 (1985). "In seeking to open a confessed judgment, a petitioner must act promptly, allege a meritorious defense, and present sufficient evidence of that defense to require submission of the issue to a jury." Sams Corporation v. Garin, 352 Pa.Super. 105, 107, 507 A.2d 402, 403 (1986). Furthermore, "[i]n determining the existence or non-existence of a meritorious defense, a court must view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the moving party, accepting as true all evidence and reasonable and proper inferences flowing therefrom." Hamilton Bank v. Rulnick, 327 Pa.Super. 133, 138, 475 A.2d 134, 137 (1984). We now review appellant's contentions with these principles in mind. Appellant acted promptly in filing his petition to open the confessed judgment, however, we find his defenses to the judgment are lacking in merit. Appellant claims that confession of judgment is not available to residential landlords seeking to evict their tenants. He bases his conclusion on the companion United States Supreme Court cases of D.H. Overmeyer Co. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174, 92 S. Ct. 775, 31 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1972) and Swarb v. Lennox, 405 U.S. 191, 92 S. Ct. 767, 31 L. Ed. 2d 138 (1972). Contrary to appellant's assertions, both Overmeyer and Swarb uphold the constitutionality of cognovit provisions where there has been a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of the party's due process rights. A review of the record in the instant action convinces us that appellant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his due process rights and agreed to the confession of judgment provision. Appellant *330 negotiated the drafting of the lease through his attorney, and the lease itself reflects the various deletions and additions made pursuant to such negotiations. Appellant also argues the lease was not a confession of judgment instrument as the paragraph upon which appellee relies does not contain the words "Confession of Judgment" or to "Confess Judgment". Despite the fact the words "Confession of Judgment" do not specifically appear in the lease, it is clear that paragraph 17 of the lease, above, authorizes an amicable action in ejectment to be instituted by confession of judgment. In fact, during the lease negotiations, appellant's attorney, in a letter to appellee's attorney, requested that: (Record, Exhibit B-2.) Appellee only agreed to deletion of paragraph 16 and left paragraph 17 in its original form. Appellant now attempts to argue paragraph 17 does not authorize confession of judgment when in fact it was so characterized by his own attorney. Therefore, we find confession of judgment was authorized by the lease instrument. Appellant next asserts appellee failed to give him proper notice of the ejectment as the lease provides for ten (10) days notice by certified mail to lessee before the lessor may exercise any remedy for breach. Paragraph 36, "Addendum `A'", of the lease provides: Further, paragraph 26 of the lease provides that all notices required to be given by Lessor or Lessee shall be by certified mail, return receipt requested. In appellee's complaint in Confession of Judgment, both monetary and non-monetary breaches of the lease *331 were alleged. Since either breach (non-payment of rent or unauthorized assignment) is sufficient to terminate the lease agreement, proper notice of one or both breaches is sufficient. Paragraph 36 of the lease does not address breaches occurring because of non-payment of rent, however, paragraph 19 provides in pertinent part: On February 28, 1986, appellee's business agent sent a letter to appellant reiterating the unacceptability of his late rent payments and stating that he was to be put on notice that should he be late one more time, appellee would pursue a legal course of action appropriate to the breach of the lease (Record, Exhibit E-2). On June 4, 1986, appellee's business agent forwarded a letter to appellant advising him that he was in default for non-payment of rent and expected to vacate his apartment within thirty (30) days as his lease was terminated as of July 4, 1986. This letter was forwarded to appellant by both certified and regular mail. The certified letter was never signed by appellant and was returned. A copy of the notice and letter were also forwarded to appellant's attorney by regular mail. On July 15, 1986, appellee's attorney forwarded a letter to appellant's attorney confirming the termination of appellant's lease as appellant's attorney had instructed, by letter dated June 30, 1986, that all notices regarding appellant be sent to her office. We find that appellee has complied with the notice requirements of the lease providing for five days notice in regard to non-payment of rent. An attempt to make service *332 of the notice by certified mail was made, however, Pozsonyi's signature could not be obtained. The notices sent by regular mail to both Pozsonyi and his attorney were never returned and thus we must assume they were received. Appellant had been on notice for many months that he was in default for failure to pay his rent and in danger of having legal action brought against him. Appellant's claims that he had no notice simply do not ring true. Appellant Krause has raised the identical issues to those raised by appellant Pozsonyi and we reach the same conclusions with respect to his arguments. Accordingly, both the April 13, 1987 Order denying appellant Pozsonyi's petition to open and/or strike the confessed judgment and the May 5, 1987 Order denying a request for a stay pending appeal are affirmed. Orders affirmed.