Wells Fargo v. Door Service Inc.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 19, 2019
• Docket: 3274 EDA 2018
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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-