Appeal from the Order of Superior Court Dated March 8, 1985, at No. 570 Pittsburgh, 1983 Reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at No. GD 81-28316, Civil Division, Dated April 19, 1983. Pa. Superior Ct. , 494 A.2d 489 (1985)
Jay D. Glasser, Hollinshead & Mendelson, Pittsburgh, for appellants.
Patricia McCommon, Nernberg & Laffey, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Nix, C.j., and Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala and Papadakos, JJ.
This is the appeal of Wall of Fame Management Company, Inc., John D. Harper, Jr., and Thomas M. Reich (Appellants) from the Order of the Superior Court reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County striking a confessed judgment against Appellants by Franklin Interiors (Appellee). 343 Pa. Super. 623, 494 A.2d 489.
On October 19, 1981, Appellee filed a Complaint in Confession of Judgment against Appellants pursuant to a warrant of attorney contained in a written contract, dated November 26, 1980, for custom millwork. Appellee averred that Appellants had defaulted on payments due under the provisions of the parties' agreement, owing $18,247.50, plus interest and attorney fees in the sum of $4,363.98.
After notice of judgment was mailed to Appellants and a Praecipe for Writ of Execution entered on the judgment, on February 2, 1982, Appellants filed a Petition to Open and/or Strike the Judgment.
The trial court, after receiving oral arguments from the parties and written memoranda of law in support of their respective positions, reviewed the record as filed by Appellee and found that the underlying contract upon which judgment was confessed required the approval of Appellee before becoming a contract. That court pointed to the following language in the contract:
This document does not become a contract until approved by an officer of Franklin Interiors.
The trial court found this language was a condition precedent to the existence of a validly executed contract between the parties and, consequently, a pre-condition to the effectiveness of the confession of judgment clause. Because Appellee's signature was not affixed to the contract, the trial court concluded that the document appeared to be "something less than a contract" ...