SOFIA N. THOM Appellant
v.
CDM AUTO SALES AND JENNIFER SCHAEFFER Appellees
Appeal
from the Order Entered December 14, 2018 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No.:
C-48-CV-2017-7387
BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER, [*] JJ.
OPINION
STABILE, J.
Appellant
Sofia N. Thom appeals from the December 14, 2018 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County ("trial
court"), [1] which denied her self-styed "Motion
for Leave to Amend Name of Defendant In Caption of Case and
Underlying Default Judgment" (the "Motion").
Upon review, we reverse.
The
facts and procedural history of this case are uncontested.
Briefly, following Appellant's February 14, 2017,
purchase of a used vehicle from Appellees, she filed on
September 14, 2017, a civil complaint against them alleging
fraud, a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of fitness for
a particular purpose, and breach of express and implied
warranty of merchantability.[2] See Complaint, 9/14/17,
at ¶¶ 17-51. On October 10, 2017, Appellant issued
a "Notice of Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Default
for Failure to Plead" (the "Notice") to
Appellees, advising them that they had ten days from the date
of the Notice to file an answer in this case to avoid the
entry of a default judgment against them. On October 30,
2017, Appellant filed a praecipe for judgment for $8, 000.00
against Appellees.
On
November 6, 2017, Attorney Keene Jabbour entered his
appearance on behalf of Appellees. On the same day, Attorney
Jabbour filed an answer to the September 14, 2017 complaint,
seeking the dismissal thereof. In the answer, Appellees
asserted that the name of Appellee CDM Auto Sales was
incorrect in the complaint and should have been "CDM
Auto Sales, LLC." On April 13, 2018, more than five
months later, Appellees filed a "Petition to Open
Default Judgment." Therein, Appellees once again
asserted that it was CDM Auto Sales, LLC, and not CDM Auto
Sales, that sold the vehicle in question to Appellant. The
trial court, after issuing a rule to show cause, denied the
petition to open default judgment on September 18, 2018.
On
September 28, 2018, Appellees filed a motion for
reconsideration of the trial court's September 18, 2018
order denying their petition to open default judgment. The
trial court denied reconsideration on October 2, 2018. On
November 21, 2018, more than one year after the entry of the
underlying default judgment and more than two months after
the trial court's denial of the petition to open
judgment, Appellant filed the instant Motion, seeking to
amend Appellee CDM Auto Sales' name in the caption and in
the underlying judgment. In particular, Appellant sought to
change the name of Appellee CDM Auto Sales to "CDM Auto
Sales, LLC." In support, Appellant alleged that on
November 15, 2018, Appellees' counsel answered her
February 22, 2018 interrogatories stating that CDM Auto
Sales, LLC was not a party to this action. On December 14,
2018, following a hearing, the trial court issued an order
and opinion, denying the Motion, concluding that Pa.R.C.P.
No. 1033 applied only to amendments of pleadings and not
judgments. On December 21, 2018, Appellant moved for
reconsideration, which the trial court denied on January 2,
2019. Appellant timely appealed on January 7, 2019. The trial
court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant
complied, raising several assertions of error. In response,
the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement, wherein
it adopted its December 14, 2018 opinion.
On
appeal, Appellant raises a single issue for our review:
[I.] Did the trial court err by not permitting amendment of
the caption and underlying judgment to reflect the corporate
designation of the entity defendant when, in fact, no new
party was added to the case and where the entity defendant
led [Appellant] to believe its name was something else?
Appellant's Brief at 5.
It is
settled that the trial court "enjoys 'broad
discretion' to grant or deny a petition to amend"
pleadings. The Brickman Grp., Ltd v. CGU Ins. Co.,
865 A.2d 918, 9267 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted);
see General Mach. Corp. v. Feldman, 507 A.2d 831,
834 (Pa. Super. 1986) (noting that Rule 1033 is completely
subject to the discretion of the trial court). We therefore
use an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial
court's order granting or denying a petition to amend.
Id.
Rule
1033 provides:
(a) A party, either by filed consent of the
adverse party or by leave of court, may at any time
change the form of action, add a person as a party,
correct the name of a party, or otherwise amend the
pleading.[3] The amended pleading may aver transactions
or occurrences which have happened before or after the filing
of the original pleading, even though they give rise to a new
cause of action or defense. An amendment may be made to
conform the pleading to the evidence offered or admitted.
(b) An amendment correcting the name of a
party against whom a claim has been asserted in the
original pleading relates back to the date of the
commencement of the action if, within 90 days after the
period provided by law for commencing the action, the
party received notice of the institution of the action such
that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on
the merits and the party knew or should have known that the
action would have been brought against the party but for a
mistake concerning the identity of the proper party.
Pa.R.C.P. No. 1033(a) and (b) (emphasis added). It is
"beyond peradventure that leave to amend pleadings has
traditionally been liberally granted in this
jurisdiction." Biglan v. Biglan, 479 A.2d 1021,
1025 (Pa. Super. 1984) (citations omitted); see
Pa.R.C.P. No. 126. As can be seen from the clear language of
Rule 1033, no limit is imposed on the time when an amendment
may be made. Thus, "[p]leadings may be amended at the
discretion of the trial court after pleadings are closed,
while a motion for judgment on the pleadings is pending, at
trial, after judgment, or after an award has been
made and an appeal taken therefrom."[4]Id. at
1025-26 (emphasis added) (citing Sheppard v. First
Pennsylvania Banking & Tr. Co., 184 A.2d 309, 311
(Pa. Super. 1962)); see also Keller V. R.C. Keller Motor
Co., 124 A.2d 105, 106 (Pa. ...