Appeal from the Order entered November 10, 1988 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. GD 80-25930. Appeal from the Order entered October 24, 1988 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. GD 80-25930.
Edward C. Leckey, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
John M. Silvestri, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Cavanaugh, Del Sole and Montgomery, JJ.
[ 385 Pa. Super. Page 640]
This appeal is from an Order entered in a proceeding commenced by a Petition to Compel Satisfaction of a Judgment and Assess Statutory Penalties for failure to satisfy the Judgment. Appellant, who is the original judgment
[ 385 Pa. Super. Page 641]
creditor, contends that the trial court was incorrect in deciding that Pennsylvania should apply its own interest rate in determining whether a Pennsylvania judgment has been satisfied by a payment made in a foreign state. We affirm the trial court's decision.
On May 14, 1974, the Appellant, Peoples Bond & Mortgage Company, entered a judgment in its favor and against the Appellee, Morton Chatkin, in the amount of $39,520.00. This judgment was revived twice, the second time on December 17, 1985, in the amount of $65,236.57 plus costs and interest. Post judgment interest in Pennsylvania is calculated at the rate of six percent (6%).
In the meantime, the Pennsylvania judgment was transferred to Arizona. On January 30, 1984, the Appellant issued a writ of execution against real estate owned by the Appellee in Arizona in the amount of $37,280.00 plus interest at ten percent (10%) from December 14, 1979 and costs incurred in Arizona. A Sheriff's sale was held on March 10, 1986 at which the Appellant paid $91,000.00 for the Appellee's property. Appellee subsequently redeemed his property by paying the sheriff the bid price, a redemption fee, and interest on those sums from the date of sale.
Appellee petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for a Rule to Show Cause as to why the Pennsylvania judgment should not be satisfied, why Appellee was not entitled to liquidated damages, and why any sums received by Appellant in excess of the sums necessary to satisfy the Pennsylvania judgment should not be returned to Appellee. On May 24, 1988, the court entered the following order:
AND NOW, to-wit, this 24 day of May, 1988, it is hereby ORDERED that in respect to the rule issued October 22, 1986 (a) the interest rate issue is adjudicated in favor of defendant and against plaintiff and (b) all other issues are adjudicated in favor of plaintiff; it is further ORDERED that within 20 days of the date of this order plaintiff's counsel and ...