Orie v. Stone

601 A.2d 1268, 411 Pa. Super. 481, 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 3, 1992
Docket1884
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 601 A.2d 1268 (Orie v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Orie v. Stone, 601 A.2d 1268, 411 Pa. Super. 481, 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3 (Pa. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinions

JOHNSON, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order entered on October 19, 1990, purporting to vacate the order entered on September 11, 1990, which directed the entry of judgment in favor of John R. Orie, Jr. and against additional garnishee, Pittsburgh National Bank, in the amount of $10,769.66 held in the account captioned “Estate of Nicholas Rade Stone, Deceased, Nicholas Rade Stone, Jr., Executor.” We reverse.

This garnishment proceeding commenced when John R. Orie obtained a complaint for confession of judgment against Nicholas Rade Stone, Jr. in the amount of $17,920. Upon praecipe, the Prothonotary prepared a writ of execution against Nicholas Rade Stone, Jr., defendant, naming Allegheny Valley Bank as garnishee. On February 17, 1987, Orie directed the Prothonotary to re-issue the writ of execution against the Estate of Nicholas Rade Stone, naming Nicholas Rade Stone, Jr., the beneficiary and Executor of the Estate, as additional garnishee. At the time of issuance of the writ, Orie also filed and served interrogatories directed to Stone, Jr., Executor.

Stone, Jr., Executor, as garnishee, accepted service on February 20, 1987 but failed to respond to Orie’s interrogatories as contemplated by Pa.R.C.P. 3145. On March 24, 1987, Orie notified Stone, Jr. of his intention to enter default judgment against him pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 3146. On April 2, 1987, upon praecipe, the Prothonotary entered judgment, unliquidated in amount, in favor of Orie and against Stone, Jr., Executor, garnishee. Orie then notified Stone, Jr. pursuant to Rule 3146 that the court would assess the amount of the judgment at a hearing to be held on April 27,1987. Stone, Jr. failed to appear at the hearing. [484]*484On April 27, 1987, judgment by default was taken against Stone, Jr., Executor, garnishee, in the amount of $17,920 for failure to answer interrogatories pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 3146(a).

On June 23,1987, Orie filed a praecipe to re-issue the writ of execution naming Pittsburgh National Bank [hereinafter “PNB”] as additional garnishee. At the time of the judgment, the Estate account maintained at PNB, contained only a nominal balance. No further action was taken until August, 1990, when PNB filed Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories, and New Matter in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 3145(b)(3), wherein PNB revealed that it had in its possession the sum of $10,769.66, following deduction for attorneys fee and service charge, held in the account captioned “Estate of Nicholas Rade Stone, Deceased, Nicholas Rade Stone, Jr., Executor.”

At the suggestion of PNB, Orie presented a “Motion to Compel Payment” directed to PNB. On September 11, 1990, the Court issued an order directing the entry of judgment in favor of Orie and against additional garnishee, PNB, in the amount of $10,769.66, held in the Estate account. No appeal was ever taken from the trial court’s September 11,1990, order. Instead, on September 27, 1990, Stone, Jr. presented a motion to vacate the September 11, 1990, Order of the court alleging inter alia that he did not receive notice of presentation of the Motion to Compel Payment to Garnishee.

On October 19, 1990, thirty-eight days after judgment was entered, the Honorable Robert P. Horgos entered an Order in which he vacated the September 11, 1990 Order and directed the release of the funds from Orie’s garnishment action. Upon a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification presented by PNB, Judge Horgos entered an Order on November 1, 1990 in which it directed PNB to pay the funds at issue into a court supervised account until final resolution of the controversy. On appeal from the Order of October 19, 1990, Orie argues that the trial court erred in vacating its September 11, 1990 order. Because we find [485]*485that the trial court was without power to vacate its September 11, 1990 order, we are constrained to agree with Orie.

“Unlike a judgment entered by confession or by default, which remains within the control of the court indefinitely and may be opened or vacated at any time upon proper cause shown, a judgment entered in an adverse proceeding ordinarily cannot be disturbed after [it has become final].” Simpson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 350 Pa.Super. 239, 243-244, 504 A.2d 335, 337 (1986) (citations omitted). A judgment entered in an adverse proceeding becomes final if no appeal therefrom is filed within thirty days. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5505. Thereafter, the judgment cannot normally be modified, rescinded or vacated. Simpson, supra, 350 Pa.Superior Ct. at 244, 504 A.2d at 337.

In this Court’s decision in Simpson, we stated that:

Although the inability of a court to grant relief from a judgment entered in a contested action after the appeal period has expired is not absolute, the discretionary power of the court over such judgments is very limited. Generally, judgments regularly entered on adverse proceedings cannot be opened or vacated after they have become final, unless there has been fraud or some other circumstance “so grave or compelling as to constitute ‘extraordinary cause’ justifying intervention by the court. ”

Simpson, supra, 350 Pa.Superior Ct. at 245, 504 A.2d at 337. (citations omitted) (emphasis ours).

In the instant case, the judgment entered on September 11, 1990 in favor of Orie and against garnishee, PNB, was not entered by confession, nor was it entered by default upon praecipe. Instead, it was entered by the trial court, upon Orie’s Motion to Compel Payment, after both Orie and PNB had a full opportunity to present their positions by way of interrogatories and answers thereto.

The Rules of Civil Procedure for the Enforcement of Money Judgments do not provide for the filing of a “Motion to Compel Payment.” However, the Rules do provide that [486]*486the procedure between plaintiff and the garnishee “shall, as far as practicable, be the same as though the interrogatories were a complaint and the answer of the garnishee were an answer in a civil action.” Pa.R.C.P. 3145(a); see Johnson v. Johnson, 357 Pa.Super. 248, 251, 515 A.2d 960, 961 (1986) appeal denied 515 Pa. 581, 527 A.2d 541. In his “Motion to Compel Payment,” Orie sought to have the court decide, based upon the interrogatories and PNB’s answers thereto, that PNB was holding assets of Stone, Jr., defendant. Construing the interrogatories filed by Orie as a complaint and the answers to interrogatories filed by PNB as answers, we conclude that Orie’s Motion to Compel Payment was actually a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 3147. Id., 357 Pa.Superior Ct. at 251, 515 A.2d at 961.

Rule 3147 permits the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the garnishee upon the pleadings provided that “no money judgment entered against the garnishee shall exceed the amount of the judgment of the plaintiff against the defendant together with interest and costs.” In its September 11, 1990 Order the court specifically stated that “judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff, John R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Philadelphia v. 1531 Napa, LLC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2025
Skender, C. v. Skender, D.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
Resp. Elec., Inc. v. Com of PA Penn State Health
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
Res. Ind. Inc. v. Com of PA Penn State Health Med
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
Lagbara, S. v. Lagbara, N.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Com. of PA v. W. & N. Clementi
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
K. Hammond v. R.M. Krak, D.M.D.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Grzandziel, T. v. Jones, B. v. Slade, M.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Easley, D. v. Johnson, E.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
In Re: Estate of Ellesmere Farrell
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Greenville Gastroenterology, SC
108 A.3d 913 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Shelly Enterprises, Inc. v. Guadagnini
20 A.3d 491 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)
In the Interest of S.R.R.
16 Pa. D. & C.5th 339 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 2010)
Koppel v. Case
2 Pa. D. & C.5th 373 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 2007)
Egan v. Egan
759 A.2d 405 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2000)
PHEAA v. Lal
714 A.2d 1116 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)
Philadelphia Police Department v. Civil Service Commission
702 A.2d 878 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Stockton v. Stockton
698 A.2d 1334 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Goodstein v. Goodstein
619 A.2d 703 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Orie v. Stone
601 A.2d 1268 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
601 A.2d 1268, 411 Pa. Super. 481, 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orie-v-stone-pasuperct-1992.