Court Opinion

ID: 9728878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:18:05.053773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:52.638260
License: Public Domain

HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
My review of the record discloses the following facts: Appellants filed a complaint against appellees on April 28, 1977. An appearance was entered by counsel for appellees Black and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.
On May 16, 1977, appellants’ counsel telephoned appellees’ counsel and requested a 30 day extension in order to file an answer. The extension was granted. Numerous letters, and phone calls followed in which appellants’ counsel requested action on the part of appellees. The record indicates appellees’ counsel did not meet with his clients until December 29, 1977. Settlement negotiations took place subsequent to that time. Appellants’ counsel courteously and generously granted numerous extensions to appellees’ counsel until he sent a letter dated April 19, 1978, giving appellees’ counsel 20 days to file a responsive pleading or a default judgment would be taken since all settlement attempts had failed.
On May 8, 1978, counsel for appellees requested a further extension of ten days which was granted by appellants. On May 23, 1977, a default judgment was entered by appellants for failure of appellees to file a responsive pleading. A *465petition to open the judgment was filed on May 31, 1978. Following a hearing, the court opened the judgment.
The decision to open a default judgment is within the discretion of the court below. Our Court will not reverse unless there has been an abuse of discretion. America Corp. v. Cascerceri, 255 Pa.Super. 574, 389 A.2d 126 (1978); Slott v. Triad Distribs, Inc., 230 Pa.Super. 545, 327 A.2d 151 (1974).
In the instant appeal, I need only address the issue as to whether the appellees satisfactorily explained their failure to file a responsive pleading. Appellee argues that he was under the impression appellants would never take a default judgment. The record does not support this contention. Furthermore, we have held that a defendant, absent express assurances to the contrary, may not assume that a default judgment will not be entered during settlement negotiations. McEvilly v. Tucci, 239 Pa.Super. 474, 362 A.2d 259 (1976). The lower court held, in its finding of fact, that settlement negotiations were in process during twelve of the thirteen months delay. Since appellees’ counsel did not interview his client until late December of 1977, the record does not support this conclusion. Rather, the record indicates appellees’ counsel failed to file a responsive pleading for thirteen months although he was granted numerous extensions in order to do so. We have held that notice to opposing counsel of the intent to take a default judgment is an important consideration. Ruggiero v. Phillips, 250 Pa. Super. 349, 378 A.2d 971 (1977). The letter of April 19, 1978, clearly indicated appellants’ intentions. Appellees further contend that their counsel requested an extension of “10 days or so”, rather than ten days. However, the findings of fact of the lower court and the record indicate that only a ten day extension was granted.
Appellees argue that their counsel’s misunderstanding as to the length of the extension granted is an adequate explanation for the failure to file a responsive pleading.
The record in the instant matter discloses numerous occasions where appellants’ counsel requested a responsive pleading and/or action on the part of appellees’ counsel. In view of the clear and concise letter of April 19,1978, and the prior *466thirteen month delay. I fail to see how appellees’ counsel could misunderstand, or expect a blanket further extension of time. The letter and the prior correspondence of the parties indicates appellants’ desire to proceed in a diligent fashion on April 19, 1978 was entirely reasonable. Rather than supporting appellees’ contention that the failure to file the responsive pleading was due to a misunderstanding or mistake of counsel, the record supports the conclusion that appellees’ counsel flagrantly abused the numerous extensions courteously granted by opposing counsel. Furthermore, we have held that the entire delay has to be satisfactorily explained, not simply the failure to answer within the ten day limitation. Tice v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, 253 Pa.Super. 118, 384 A.2d 1257 (1978). Since the lower court failed to consider the delay in its entirety, choosing instead to emphasize only the time after the April 19, 1978 letter and reached conclusions unsupported by the record, I disagree with the majority and would hold that the opening of the judgment was an abuse of discretion. While recognizing that appellants had agreed to accept considerably less than the amount of the judgment, since appellees claim to have a valid counterclaim, my position would not preclude them from pursuing that claim in a separate action.
Accordingly, I would reverse the order of the lower court and reinstate appellants’ judgment.