DEEK INVESTMENT, L.P. Appellee
FRANCIS MURRAY & PATRICIA MURRAY Appellants
from the Order Entered February 22, 2016 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No: 91-09071
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.
Francis W. Murray ("Francis") and Patricia A.
Murray ("Patricia") (collectively "the
Murrays"), appeal pro se from the order entered
on February 22, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester
County, denying their motions to set aside a writ of
execution against personal property. The trial court
determined that the writ of execution of Appellee, DEEK
Investment, L.P. ("DEEK"), was timely entered.
Following review, we vacate the February 22, 2016 order and
prior appeal to this Court,  we summarized the factual
background of this case as follows:
DEEK acquired a judgment against the Murrays in the amount of
$267, 939.89 plus interest from and after September 26, 1991.
DEEK acquired the judgment from CoreStates Bank. . . on
January 24, 2000. The Murrays negotiated with DEEK on the
settlement of the matter, and on May 22, 2002, the parties
entered into a written forbearance agreement which set up a
payment schedule whereby the Murrays would make a series of
payments to DEEK beginning on June 3, 2002, and culminating
on February 17, 2004. The agreement contained both monetary
and non-monetary terms, and the Murrays complied strictly
with all non-monetary terms.
As part of the monetary terms of the agreement, the Murrays
agreed to pay DEEK $352, 000.00 by February 16, 2004, to
satisfy the judgment. The payments were to be made monthly in
the amount of $1, 000.00 with larger principal payments to be
made over time. The Murrays were late on three of the $1,
000.00 payments, and were unable to make a timely payment of
$95, 000.00 on February 17, 2005. The parties agreed to split
the larger payment into two manageable payments, one for $40,
000.00 and one for $55, 000.00. The Murrays paid the $40,
000.00 sum, due May 13, 2003, in a timely manner, but were
thirty days late in making the $55, 000.00 payment,
originally due August 15, 2003.
The final payment under the agreement was scheduled to be
paid on February 17, 2004, in the amount of $39, 000.00. On
February 13, 2004, however, four days before the final
payment was due, DEEK declared the Murrays in default because
of the late payments made through the term of the agreement
and three missed $1, 000.00 payments. The Murrays notified
DEEK that $42, 000.00 was available to DEEK through their law
firm's escrow account, which equaled the $39, 000.00
final payment plus the $3, 000.00 payment for the last three
months. DEEK would not accept the payment, and on April 2,
2004, DEEK filed a motion to compel the Murrays' asset
* * *
The trial court granted the [Murrays' April 22, 2004
petition to enforce the settlement agreement] and entered an
order dated April 22, 2005, which permitted the Murrays to
pay the remaining sums, and included an additional amount to
compensate DEEK for costs in pursuing the late payments.
DEEK Investment, L.P. v. Murray, No. 1431 EDA 2005,
unpublished memorandum at 1-3 (Pa. Super. filed October 13,
this Court's October 13, 2006 ruling, interactions
between the parties continued without resolution of their
dispute. The docket reflects DEEK's filing and service of
a writ of revival in April 2009 and the Murrays' filing
of an answer to the writ in May 2009. DEEK also filed a
motion to compel the deposition of Francis, resulting in the
issuance of a June 24, 2009 order granting DEEK's motion
to compel. The docket does not reflect any further activity
until February 13, 2012, when DEEK filed a praecipe for writ
of execution against the Murrays' personal property. On
March 12, 2013, DEEK served a notice of sheriff's sale
pursuant to the writ. The Murrays filed motions to set aside
the writ of execution in 2014 and again in 2015.
order entered February 22, 2016, the trial court denied the
Murrays' motions to set aside the February 2012 writ of
execution against the Murrays' personal property. This
timely appeal followed. By order entered April 6, 2016, the
trial court directed the Murrays to file a Rule 1925(b)
statement of errors complained of on appeal. On April 26,
Appellants filed a 1925(b) statement signed by Patricia only,
contending the writ of execution should be set aside on legal
grounds, citing the statute of limitations and, in
particular, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5529(a). On May 26, 2016,
the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion, finding that
Francis failed to preserve any issues on appeal and that the
writ of execution was not filed beyond the expiration of the
statute of limitations.
appeal, the Murrays ask this Court to consider three issues,
which we have reordered for ease of discussion.
A. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed
an error of law, finding [Francis], individually, has not
preserved his issues for appeal?
B. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or
abused its discretion in denying [the Murrays'] set aside
relief (sic) from the Writ of Execution against
their personal property dated February 13, 2012, such relief
having been requested pursuant to Pa. ...