Court Opinion

ID: 9650709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:49:49.01448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:25.476104
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
Although I believe that the procedure here employed to give notice of a pending adjudication to a basically unrepresented litigant may be constitutionally infirm,1 I do not believe, as the majority intimates, that the sufficiency of notice should turn on the sequence of attorneys involved. However, refusal to open this default judgment was clearly erroneous.
In Texas and Block House Fish and Game Club v. Bonnell Run Hunting and Fishing Corp., 388 Pa. 198, 130 A. 2d 508 (1957) we stressed that a refusal to permit the opening of a default judgment could be reversed only for a clear abuse of legal discretion. But, characterizing Pinsky v. Master, 343 Pa. 451, 452, 23 A. 2d 727, 728 (1942) as the leading case on this subject and quoting therefrom, we also insisted in Block House Fish (supra at 201, 130 A. 2d at 509-10) : “‘It has long been a custom in Pennsylvania to grant relief from a judgment entered by default where the failure is due to a mistake or oversight of counsel and where application is promptly made and a reasonable excuse for the default offered.’ ”
Appellant promptly petitioned the court to open the judgment,2 asserted a meritorious defense and demonstrated that her failure to appear could be reasonably excused. Though we review only for an abuse of discretion, I find it inconceivable that the trial court ex*540ercised its discretion3 in this instance and would therefore reverse the decree below on this ground alone.
Mr. Justice O’Brien joins in this concurring opinion.

 See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S. Ct. 652 (1950).

 We emphasized in Block House Fish as a reason supporting our refusal to reverse the lower court’s decision not to permit opening that appellant waited until four months and ten days after judgment was entered to present its petition. Appellant here acted within thirty days.

 The court below in Bloch Home Fish detailed in an extensive opinion its reasons for denying relief. In this case the court below filed no opinion of record.