J-A35006-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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.
ROCK FERRONE A/K/A ROCK A.
FERRONE AND MARCIA FERRONE A/K/A
MARCIA M. FERRONE A/K/A MARCIA A.
FERRONE,
Appellants No. 1269 WDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): GD13-009186
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and ALLEN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2014
Rock Ferrone and Marcia Ferrone appeal from the order entered on
July 12, 2013, denying their petition to strike or open judgment entered by
confession. We affirm.
This case involves guarantees on three commercial loans. In April
2001, Huntingdon National Bank’s predecessor, Sky Bank, entered into a
loan agreement and note with K-Cor, Inc., pursuant to which the bank
loaned $150,000 to K-Cor, Inc. Appellants guaranteed the loan. The
guaranty provides for judgment by confession in the event of a default on
the loan.
J-A35006-14
In April 2001, the bank and K-Cor, Inc. entered into a second loan
agreement and note, pursuant to which the bank loaned an additional
$144,000 to K-Cor, Inc.. Appellants guaranteed the loan. The guaranty
provides for judgment by confession in the event of a default on the loan.
In April 2001, the bank and K-Cor, Inc. entered into a third loan
agreement and note, pursuant to which the bank loaned an additional
$50,000 to K-Cor, Inc.. Appellants guaranteed the loan. The guaranty
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, Appellants filed a petition to strike or open the
judgment, comprised of a single paragraph averring that they had not
voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly given up their right to notice and a
hearing prior to the entry of judgment. In July 2013, following argument,
the trial court denied Appellants’ petition, concluding that Appellants had
failed to raise a meritorious defense to the confessed judgment. The trial
court further denied Appellants’ 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. Appellants filed a motion for
reconsideration, attaching to it proposed amendments to their petition. The
-2-
J-A35006-14
trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. Appellants 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 Appellants’
initial petition as well as the substantive merit of Appellants’ proposed
amendments.
Appellants raise 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?
Appellants’ 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-