Court Opinion

ID: 9400173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 16:09:30.053207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:42.703424
License: Public Domain

J-S11002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 LIBERTY BELL INVESTMENTS, LLC             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 AVA-G PROPERTIES, LLC                     :
                                           :
                    Appellant              :   No. 2207 EDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered July 25, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 210202594

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                FILED JUNE 07, 2023

      Appellant, AVA-G Properties, LLC (“AVA-G”), appeals from the order

entered July 25, 2022, denying its petition to strike default judgment. We

affirm.

      The procedural and factual history of this case is as follows. On February

26, 2021, Appellee, Liberty Bell Investments, LLC (“Liberty Bell”), initiated the

present matter by filing a praecipe for writ of summons. On March 22, 2021,

Liberty Bell personally served a copy of the writ of summons on AVA-G through

its registered agent Edward Johnson, Esquire (“Attorney Johnson”).          Trial

Court Opinion, 11/23/22, at 3. “In a letter dated March 24, 2021, [however,

Attorney] Johnson [informed counsel for Liberty Bell] that his office ‘ha[d] not

represented AVA-G [] in quite some time and [that he] ha[d] no right to accept

any documents on its behalf.’” Id. As such, on April 20, 2021, Liberty Bell

served another copy of the writ of summons on Antoine Gardiner, the sole
J-S11002-23

member of AVA-G, by personally serving a “tenant who refused to provide his

name” at 5713 Wyndale Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.             Id. at 2-3.

Then, on May 11, 2021, Liberty Bell served its complaint, setting forth claims

of breach of contract.       Id.   “The [c]ertificate of [s]ervice attached to the

[c]omplaint indicate[d] that service was made upon AVA-G [via] first class

mail at (i) 5713 Wyndale Avenue[, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,] and (ii) [Post

Office] Box 447[, Ardmore, Pennsylvania].”1 Id. at 3. Thereafter, “AVA-G did

not file a responsive pleading.” Id. Thus, after serving a ten-day notice of

intent to enter default judgment pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 237.1, Liberty Bell

requested, and obtained, a default judgment against AVA-G on November 16,

2021. Id.

       On June 3, 2022, through counsel, AVA-G filed a petition to strike the

default judgment. In the petition, AVA-G averred that it was a “New Jersey

corporation,” Attorney Johnson was its registered agent, and its registered

office was in Hackensack, New Jersey. AVA-G’s Petition to Strike the Default

Judgment, 6/3/22, at ¶ 3. AVA-G further averred that Liberty Bell initiated

the instant action by “serving the summons on March 22, 2021, by personal

service [to] its registered agent[, Attorney] Johnson,” at AVA-G’s registered

office.   Id. at ¶ 4.    Nonetheless, AVA-G claimed that Liberty Bell failed to

properly serve its complaint on AVA-G. Id. at ¶¶ 15-23. Specifically, AVA-G

alleged that, instead of mailing the complaint to the Wyndale Avenue address
____________________________________________

1As we shall explain below, AVA-G, in its operating agreement, identified the
postal box in Ardmore, Pennsylvania as its principal place of business.

                                           -2-
J-S11002-23

or the postal box in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, Liberty Bell should have served

the complaint on AVA-G’s agent, Attorney Johnson, “whose address was, as

[Liberty Bell] well knew from the service of the [w]rit [of summons in],

Hackensack, N[ew Jersey], or [upon AVA-G at its’] business address, which

was [in] Teaneck, N[ew Jersey.] Id. at ¶ 21. Accordingly, AVA-G asserted

that, because “[Liberty Bell’s c]omplaint was never served” on AVA-G, a fatal

defect existed, requiring the trial court to grant its petition to strike the default

judgment. Id. at ¶ 23.

      On July 25, 2022, the trial court entered an order denying AVA-G’s

petition to strike default judgment. See Trial Court Order, 7/25/22, at 1. In

its subsequent 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained its’ reasons for

denying AVA-G’s petition to strike. Initially, the trial court found that Liberty

Bell properly served the writ of summons, the original process in this matter,

by personally serving Attorney Johnson, AVA-G’s registered agent. Trial Court

Opinion, 11/23/22, at 7; see Pa.R.Civ.P. 424(3). Accordingly, the trial court

considered Liberty Bell’s service of the complaint under Pa.R.Civ.P. 440. Trial

Court Opinion, 11/23/22, at 6 (explaining that “service of the subsequent

complaint when suit has been initiated by writ of summons is governed by

Rule 440”). Ultimately, the trial court held that Liberty Bell’s service of the

complaint, as secondary service, was properly accomplished when Liberty Bell

mailed a copy of the complaint to the postal box in Ardmore, Pennsylvania,

which was listed in AVA-G’s operating agreement as a valid mailing address

for AVA-G’s business operations. Trial Court Opinion, 11/23/22, at 6-7; see

                                        -3-
J-S11002-23

also Pa.R.Civ.P.440 (a)(2)(ii) (explaining that service is proper when no

attorney has entered his or her appearance for a party by “leaving a copy at

or mailing a copy to the last known address of the party to be served”).

      AVA-G filed a timely notice of appeal on August 24, 2022. On appeal,

AVA-G raises the following issue:

       Did the trial court commit an error of law in denying [AVA-G’s]
       petition to strike the default judgment where on the face of
       [the] record[,] the writ of summons was never served on AVA-G
       and[,] therefore[,] the trial court never obtained personal
       jurisdiction over [AVA-G] and did not have power to enter a
       judgment against it?

AVA-G’s Brief at 2 (superfluous capitalization omitted).

      We review a trial court's ruling on a petition to strike or open a confessed

judgment for an abuse of discretion or error of law. See, e.g., Ferrick v.

Bianchini, 69 A.3d 642, 647 (Pa. Super. 2013).          “[T]he court abuses its

discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or

exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.” Neducsin v. Caplan,

121 A.3d 498, 506 (Pa. Super. 2015).

      As a preliminary matter, we find that the trial court correctly determined

that AVA-G was not entitled to relief because, based upon the record before

the trial court, no facial defect existed. Indeed, pursuant to the affidavit of

service filed by Liberty Bell, on March 22, 2021, Liberty Bell personally served

the writ of summons on Attorney Johnson, AVA-G’s registered agent. Affidavit

of Service, 4/2/21, at 1.     Shortly thereafter, Attorney Johnson informed

Liberty Bell that he was no longer affiliated with AVA-G; nevertheless, more

                                      -4-
J-S11002-23

than a year later, AVA-G, in its petition to strike default judgment, averred

that Attorney Johnson remained, in fact, its registered agent. See AVA-G’s

Petition to Strike Default Judgment, 6/3/22, ¶ 4 (claiming that Liberty Bell

initiated the instant action by “serving the summons on March 22, 2021, by

personal service [to AVA-G’s] registered agent. . .         [Attorney] Johnson”).

Accordingly, based upon AVA-G’s own filing, Liberty Bell properly served

original process, i.e., the writ of summons, upon AVA-G.          See Pa.R.Civ.P.

424(3) (explaining that “[s]ervice of original process upon a corporation or a

similar entity may be made by handing a copy to . . . an agent authorized by

the corporation or similar entity in writing to receive service of process for it”).

Because Liberty Bell properly initiated this matter through personal service of

the writ of summons upon Attorney Johnson, AVA-G’s registered agent, the

service of the complaint in this action was governed by Pa.R.Civ.P. 440

(outlining the rules for service of legal papers other than original process).

Because Liberty Bell properly initiated this matter through the personal service

of the writ of summons upon Attorney Johnson AVA-G’s registered agent,

Pa.R.Civ.P. 440(a)(2)(ii) permitted Liberty Bell to serve the complaint “by

leaving a copy at or mailing a copy to [AVA-G’s] last known address.” Id.

That is exactly what Liberty Bell did. In particular, Liberty Bell mailed, via first

class mail, a copy of the complaint to the postal box in Ardmore, Pennsylvania,

which was identified in AVA-G’s operating agreement as its primary business

address. See Liberty Bell’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to [AVA-G’s]

Motion to Strike and/or Vacate the Default Judgment, 6/23/22, at Exhibit D.

                                       -5-
J-S11002-23

Accordingly, based upon the record before it, the trial court properly denied

AVA-G’s petition to strike default judgment.

      On appeal, however, AVA-G changes track and now argues that, at the

time Liberty Bell served the writ of summons, Attorney Johnson was not

AVA-G’s registered agent. See AVA-G’s Brief at 14-19. Undoubtedly, this

wholly contradicts AVA-G’s averments in its petition to strike default

judgment. See AVA-G’s Petition to Strike the Default Judgment, 6/3/22, at

¶¶ 4 and 21 (claiming that Attorney Johnson was AVA-G’s registered agent

and Liberty Bell failed to abide by the rules of civil procedure when it failed to

serve its complaint upon him). It is apparent, therefore, that AVA-G, for the

first time on appeal, sets forth factual allegations completely contrary to those

presented before the trial court. This is impermissible under our appellate

rules. As such, we conclude AVA-G failed to preserve for appellate review the

claims based upon its newly-introduced facts. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues

not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time

on appeal.”).

      Moreover, further review of the record yields additional grounds upon

which to find that AVA-G waived its appellate claims. Indeed, we note that,

regardless, we cannot consider the issue AVA-G currently sets forth on appeal

because it is not properly preserved. It is well-settled that, “[w]henever a

trial court orders an appellant to file a concise statement of [errors]

complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), the appellant must comply

in a timely manner.” Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937, 940 (Pa. Super.

                                      -6-
J-S11002-23

2011) (emphasis, citations and quotations omitted). Thus, when ordered, an

appellant must file a timely concise statement, raising all issues it intends to

subsequently raise on appeal.      The “failure to comply with the minimal

requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in automatic waiver of the issues

raised.” Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88

A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc); see also Commonwealth v.

Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (explaining that an untimely concise

statement waives all claims on appeal); Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d

306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“[F]rom this date forward . . . [a]ppellants must comply

whenever the trial court orders them to file a [s]tatement of [errors]

[c]omplained of on [a]ppeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in

a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”).

      Herein, the record reflects that, after AVA-G filed a timely appeal, on

August 31, 2022, the trial court ordered it to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within 21 days of the

docketing of the order, i.e., on or before September 21, 2022. Trial Court

Order, 8/31/22, at 1. The order also informed AVA-G that “[a]ny issues not

properly included in the [s]tatement timely filed and served pursuant to

Pa.R.A[.]P. 1925(b) shall be deemed waived.”       Id. at 2. Despite the trial

court’s order, AVA-G filed its Rule 1925(b) statement on September 23, 2022.

AVA-G’s 1925(b) statement, therefore, was manifestly untimely, rendering its

claim waived on appeal. See Castillo, supra.

                                      -7-
J-S11002-23

      In addition, in AVA-G’s Rule 1925(b) statement, AVA-G set forth the

following claims of error:

       1. The trial court committed an error of law/abuse of discretion
          in denying [AVA-G’s] petition to strike the default judgment
          based on a lack of service of the complaint.

       2. There was a defect on the face of the record establishing that
          the complaint was not served on [AVA-G], namely:

              a. The summons was served on [AVA-G’s] agent in New
                 Jersey;

              b. The complaint was not served on [AVA-G’s] agent in
                 New Jersey, but instead was served at 5713 Wyndale
                 Avenue;

              c. As the [Office of Property Assessment] records
                 attached to the petition to strike established, the place
                 where the complaint was served – 5713 Wyndale
                 Avenue, is not owned by [AVA-G] . . . but instead is a
                 rental properly owned by Antoine Gardiner.

              d. The place where the complaint was served is not a
                 property associated with [AVA-G] and has no
                 connection with [AVA-G];

              e. Accordingly, on the face of the record, [AVA-G] was
                 not served the complaint at any address associated
                 with [AVA-G];

              f. Even where a writ of summons is properly served, the
                 failure to properly serve the complaint is a fatal
                 defect that requires the striking of a default judgment.
                 Clymire v[.] McKivitz, [504 A.2d 937, 939 (Pa.
                 Super. 1986)];

              g. As the [C]ourt reasoned, “[the service of the writ of
                 summons] imposes no duty whatever upon the
                 defendant until the plaintiff files and serves his
                 complaint, to which the defendant will be required to
                 plead[.]” Clymire, [504 A.2d at 939] (emphasis in
                 original).

                                      -8-
J-S11002-23

                h. In this case, the face of the record established that the
                   complaint was never served on [AVA-G] and
                   therefore[,] the trial court committed an error of law
                   in denying [AVA-G’s] petition to strike default
                   judgment[.]

AVA-G’s Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement, 9/23/22, at *1-*2 (unpaginated)

(emphasis added). Although AVA-G challenged the service of Liberty Bell’s

complaint in its Rule 1925(b) statement, in its appellate brief, AVA-G presents

the following issue for our review:

       Did the trial court commit an error of law in denying [AVA-G’s]
       petition to strike the default judgment where on the face of
       [the] record[,] the writ of summons was never served on
       AVA-G and[,] therefore[,] the trial court never obtained
       personal jurisdiction over [AVA-G] and did not have power to
       enter a judgment against it?

Appellant’s Brief at 2-3 (emphasis added) (superfluous capitalization omitted).

Hence, AVA-G completely abandons its earlier claim alleging Liberty Bell failed

to properly serve its complaint and, on appeal, now challenges Liberty Bell’s

alleged failure to properly serve its’ writ of summons.        See id. at 13-26.

Because AVA-G failed to raise the latter issue in its 1925(b) concise statement,

it is waived.     See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the

Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this

paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”); see also Lord, supra.

      Order affirmed.

                                        -9-
J-S11002-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/7/2023

                          - 10 -