J-A35003-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SKY BANK, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
K-COR, INC.,
Appellant No. 1266 WDA 2013
Appeal from the Order July 12, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): GD13-009195
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and ALLEN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2014
K-Cor, Inc. appeals from the order entered on July 12, 2013, denying
its petition to strike or open judgment entered by confession. We affirm.
The following facts are not in dispute. This case involves three
commercial loans. In April 2001, Huntingdon National Bank’s predecessor,
Sky Bank, entered into a loan agreement and note with Appellant, pursuant
to which the bank loaned $150,000 to Appellant. The note provides for
judgment by confession in the event of a default on the loan.
In April 2001, the bank and Appellant entered into a second loan
agreement and note, pursuant to which the bank loaned an additional
$144,000 to Appellant. The note provides for judgment by confession in the
event of a default on the loan.
J-A35003-14
In April 2001, the bank and Appellant entered into a third loan
agreement and note, pursuant to which the bank loaned an additional
$50,000 to Appellant. The note provides for judgment by confession in the
event of a default on the loan.
Following default and notice, Huntingdon National Bank (hereinafter,
the Bank) initiated this action in May 2013, filing a complaint in confession of
judgment. Thereafter, judgment was entered in the total amount of
$365,432.08.
In June 2013, Appellant filed a petition to strike or open the judgment,
comprised of a single paragraph averring that it had not voluntarily,
intelligently, and knowingly given up its right to notice and a hearing prior to
the entry of judgment. In July 2013, following argument, the trial court
denied Appellant’s petition, concluding that Appellant had failed to raise a
meritorious defense to the confessed judgment. The trial court further
denied Appellant’s oral motion to amend its petition, concluding that the
general rule permitting liberal amendment of pleadings does not apply to a
petition to strike or open. See Trial Court Order, 07/12/2013. Appellant
filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching proposed amendments to its
petition, which was denied thereafter by the trial court. Appellant timely
appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial
court submitted a responsive opinion, addressing both the defect in
-2-
J-A35003-14
Appellant’s initial petition as well as the substantive merit of Appellant’s
proposed amendments.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
[1.] Whether or not the [trial] [c]ourt abused its discretion in
failing to grant the motion for amendment of a petition, when
good and cognizable defenses are presented at the time of the
presentment of the petition and request for amendment and
incorporation of allegations at related cases?
[2.] Whether or not the [trial] [c]ourt abused its discretion in
failing to grant reconsideration of the denial of the motion for
amendment of a petition?
Appellant’s Brief at “vi.”
We affirm the order of the trial court based upon our reasoning in The
Huntington National Bank v. K-Cor, Inc., --- A.3d --- (Pa. Super. 2014)
(1265 WDA 2013).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/31/2014
-3-