THE HUNTINGDON NATIONAL BANK, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SKY BANK, Appellee
K-COR, INC., Appellant
Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Civil Division, No(s): GD13-009199.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E.,
BOWES, J., and ALLEN, JJ.
K-Cor, Inc. (Appellant) appeals from the order entered on July 12, 2013, denying its petition to strike or open judgment entered by confession. We affirm.
The following facts are not in dispute. This case involves guarantees on two commercial loans. In November 2000, Huntingdon National Bank's predecessor, Sky Bank, entered into a loan agreement with Rock Airport of Pittsburgh, LLC (Airport LLC), pursuant to which the bank loaned $3,000,000 to Airport LLC. Appellant guaranteed the loan. The guaranty provides for judgment by confession in the event of a default on the loan.
In June 2002, the bank and Airport LLC entered into a second loan agreement, pursuant to which the bank loaned an additional $370,000 to Airport LLC. Appellant guaranteed the loan. The guaranty provides for judgment by confession in the event of a default on the loan.
Following default and notice, Huntingdon National Bank (hereinafter, the Bank) initiated this action in May 2013, filing a complaint in confession of judgment. Thereafter, judgment was entered in the total amount of $3,282,049.77. See Notice of Judgment, 05/22/2013.
In June 2013, Appellant filed a petition to strike or open the judgment, comprised of a single paragraph averring that it had not voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly given up its right to notice and
a hearing prior to the entry of judgment. In July 2013, following argument, the trial court denied Appellant's petition, concluding that Appellant had failed to raise a meritorious defense to the confessed judgment. The trial court further denied Appellant's oral motion to amend its petition, concluding that the general rule permitting liberal amendment of pleadings does not apply to a petition to strike or open. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching proposed amendments to its petition, which was denied thereafter by the trial court. Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court submitted a responsive opinion, addressing both the defect in Appellant's initial petition as well as the substantive merit of Appellant's proposed amendments.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
[1.] Whether or not the [trial] [c]ourt abused its discretion in failing to grant the motion for amendment of a petition, when good and cognizable defenses are presented at the time of the presentment of the petition and request for amendment and incorporation of allegations at related cases?
[2.] Whether or not the [trial] [c]ourt abused its discretion in failing to grant reconsideration of the denial of the ...