Court Opinion

ID: 9635629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:57:00.48817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:31.177591
License: Public Domain

Concurring Statement by
BECK, J.
*802¶ 11 write separately because I find that the majority’s discussion of waiver is unnecessary to the resolution of the issue before the Court. The issue in this case as-stated clearly by appellee Wawa is “[wjhether the trial court erred in denying [Stephens’s] motion to strike or, in the alternative, to open judgment of non pros?” To answer this question we must determine if the trial court correctly applied the relevant law to the facts of this case.
¶ 2 In order to open a judgment of non pros, the petitioner must 1) promptly file a petition to open, 2) present a reasonable explanation or excuse for the default or delay that precipitated the non pros, and 3) establish that there are sufficient facts to support a cause of action. Kruis v. McKenna, 790 A.2d 322 (Pa.Super.2001). I believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Stephens failed to carry her burden to open the non pros because, as the trial court found, she failed to offer any reasonable explanation for the extensive periods of inactivity and delay in this case. Furthermore, Stephens certainly failed to file a proper petition to open the judgment of non pros promptly, having waited over four years to do so. I agree with the majority’s ultimate resolution of this case, but I believe a discussion of waiver is not relevant.