J-A19013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
WELLS FARGO EQUIPMENT FINANCE, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
INC. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
DOOR SERVICE, INC. :
: No. 3274 EDA 2018
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 15, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2017-28092
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2019
Door Service, Inc., stopped making payments on an installment
payment agreement to Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc., because software
Door Services purchased from a third party with the loan money allegedly did
not work as expected. Wells Fargo brought the instant lawsuit claiming that
Door Services had defaulted on its obligation under the agreement, and owed
over $50,000 in principal, interest, and late fees. The installment payment
agreement between the parties contained a disclaimer of any lender liability
arising from the software purchased with the loan. It also contained a forum
selection clause choosing Pennsylvania as the chosen forum for future
lawsuits.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A19013-19
After Door Services filed its answer, Wells Fargo filed a motion for
summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Appellant asserts the trial
court erred by granting of summary judgment. We affirm on the basis of the
trial court opinion.1
Door Services raised four issues on appeal.
1. Was it an error of law to grant a motion for summary judgment
when the record showed that fact issues existed and discovery
was not complete?
2. Was it an error of law not to apply Illinois law to this action
under 42 P.S. 5327?
3. Was it an error of law to split the cause of action under the
jurisdiction of at least two (2) states?
4. Was it an error of law to overlook the plaintiff’s failure to file a
motion on the sufficiency of the objections to the requests for
admission?
Door Services, Inc.’s Brief, at 3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude
that there is no merit to the issues Door Services has raised on appeal. The
trial court opinion properly disposes of Door Services’ arguments, and we
adopt it as our own. See Trial Ct. Op., at 3-5 (concluding that claims trial
court should have applied Illinois law were waived for failing to raise before
trial court and would lack merit; claim trial court erred in granting summary
____________________________________________
1 In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts
and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have not restated them at
length here. See Trial Court Opinion, 01/01/19, at 1-2.
-2-
J-A19013-19
judgment was meritless because Wells Fargo’s predecessor had no duty to
investigate software; trial court properly granted summary judgment where
no triable issue of fact existed, even without Door Services’ responses to Wells
Fargo’s request for admissions).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
President Judge Emeritus Stevens joins the memorandum.
Judge Kunselman concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/19/19
-3-