Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TD Bank, N.A. v. Silica Investments, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 2, 2013

TD BANK, N.A., Appellee,
v.
SILICA INVESTMENTS, LLC, 1220-28 NORTH FRONT STREET, LLC, GEORGE C. MANOSIS AND EL MEDINI, Appellants, TD BANK, N.A., Appellee,
v.
SILICA INVESTMENTS, LLC, 1220-28 NORTH FRONT STREET, LLC, GEORGE C. MANOSIS AND EL MEDINI, Appellants, TD BANK, N.A., Appellee,
v.
SILICA INVESTMENTS, LLC, 1220-28 NORTH FRONT STREET, LLC, EMG ACQUISITIONS, LLC, NATC HOLDINGS, LLC, MATOCK INVESTMENTS, LLC, GEORGE C. MANOSIS, EL MEDINI AND MIER COHEN, Appellants,

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Order entered September 20, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No(s): April Term, 2012, Nos. 00939, 0930, 0931.

BEFORE: SHOGAN, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, [*] JJ.

MEMORANDUM

ALLEN, J.

Silica Investments, LLC, et al. ("Appellants") have appealed from the trial court's September 20, 2012 order denying their motion to strike/open confession of judgment. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.

In summary, this case arises from a commercial loan transaction between the parties. Appellee TD Bank ("TD Bank") loaned Appellants $500, 000 in August of 2006. As part of their agreement, the parties executed a judgment note. It is undisputed that Appellants defaulted on the loan obligation. On June 24, 2010, the parties executed a forbearance agreement relative to the loan and judgment note. Appellants continued to be in default. In April of 2012, TD Bank initiated a successful action to confess judgment. Appellants responded by filing a motion to open or strike judgment. The trial court convened hearings on August 23 and September 20, 2012, after which it denied Appellants' motion. This appeal followed.[1]

In their statement of errors, Appellants contend that the confessed judgment should have been stricken or opened because there was "no cognivant clause or warrant of attorney to confess judgment." Statement of Errors, 11/20/12. Appellants frame their two appellate issues as follows:

1. Did the trial court err in its determination that the warrants of attorneys contained in the underlying notes and guaranties were not invalidated by the execution of the subsequent [] Forbearance Agreement, which contained absolutely no warrant of attorney to confess judgment?
2. Did the trial court err in its determination that Appellant 1220-28 North Front Street, LLC was subject to the warrants of attorney to confess judgment contained in the note and guaranties despite the fact Appellant 1220-28 North Front Street, LLC never executed the note and/or guaranties?

Appellants' Briefs at 2.

Upon review of the parties' briefs, the record and the relevant law, we agree with the well-reasoned analysis of the Honorable Leon W. Tucker, sitting as the trial court. Judge Tucker, in his December 20, 2012 opinion, has cogently addressed Appellants' claims, citing both the record and applicable legal authority, such that further discussion by this Court would be redundant. We therefore adopt and incorporate Judge Tucker's December 20, 2012 opinion as our own, and affirm the order denying Appellants' motion to strike/open confession of judgment.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

(IMAGE OMITTED).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.