Est. of: J.M. v. McFadden, J.

Citation: 2023 Pa. Super. 242Docket: 263 EDA 2023

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; November 27, 2023; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John McFadden appeals the denial of his petition to strike or open a New Jersey judgment of $559,254.27 entered against him in favor of the Estate of Joan McFadden. The judgment was filed by praecipe in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, on September 24, 2019, with accompanying documentation from New Jersey, including an affidavit by the foreign fiduciary. The Estate filed a writ of execution on March 15, 2022, prompting McFadden to contest the judgment's validity, claiming the docket entries were not properly authenticated. 

During a hearing on September 29, 2022, testimony was provided by Herbert J. Stayton, the attorney handling the Estate’s case, regarding the efforts to obtain certified copies of the docket entries for use in Pennsylvania. The trial court ultimately denied McFadden's petition on December 28, 2022. He now raises several issues, including: the trial court's failure to strike the judgment due to lack of proper authentication of the docket entries as required by Pennsylvania law; alleged factual and legal errors regarding the presence of a seal on the documents; deficiencies in the notice of filing related to creditor information; and the requirement for compliance with Pennsylvania statutes concerning foreign judgments prior to filing. The appellate court reverses the trial court's order and remands for further proceedings.

The legal review standard for a petition to strike a default judgment in Pennsylvania is de novo, with a plenary scope, focusing on the application of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. A petition to strike functions as a demurrer to the record, allowing for dismissal only in the presence of a fatal defect or irregularity on the record’s face. Such defects must affect the judgment's validity and deny the prothonotary authority to enter judgment; otherwise, the judgment is void ab initio. Courts are limited to the record present at the time of judgment entry when assessing for fatal defects.

The appellant contends that a New Jersey judgment was improperly authenticated under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) due to the absence of a seal and a certificate confirming custody of the docket entries. According to UEFJA and related Pennsylvania statutes, a foreign judgment and its accompanying docket entries must be authenticated to be treated as a local judgment. Specifically, the laws require a certificate from an officer in the originating jurisdiction confirming legal custody of the record. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clarified that this authentication necessitates a certificate accompanying the foreign judgment. In this case, the Estate filed the foreign judgment with the necessary incidental docket entries, attested by the Deputy Surrogate, in Carbon County on September 24, 2019.

The docket entries presented in the case lacked proper certification, specifically failing to include a certificate affirming the clerk’s custody and an official seal from the clerk’s office or court, which are required under 4306(b) and 5328(a). A comparison to Medina, Medina, Inc. v. Gurrentz Int'l Corp. shows that valid certification must indicate the authenticity of the docket entries, be signed by the clerk, and display the court’s seal, all of which were missing in this instance. The trial court erred in denying the Appellant's petition to strike based on these deficiencies apparent on the record's face. Testimony from Attorney Stayton regarding common practices in New Jersey was deemed irrelevant, as the court's review should only consider the record at the time of judgment. Consequently, the order denying the petition to strike is reversed, and the case is remanded for the court to grant the petition due to the inadequate certification of the docket entries. The court will not address the remaining issues raised by the Appellant. Jurisdiction has been relinquished. Date: 11/27/2023.