J. S37041/19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DEVINDER SINGH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : AHMIR KAHN AND : HOSINA MOMTAJ H/W, : No. 175 EDA 2019 : Appellants : Appeal from the Order Entered November 27, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No. August Term 2018-01928 BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 22, 2019 Ahmir Kahn and Hosina Momtag (collectively, “appellants”) appeal from the November 27, 2018 order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying their motion to open and/or strike judgment. After careful review, we affirm. The trial court set forth the following: In October 2017, [appellants] executed a $65,989.00 promissory note in favor of [Devinder Singh (“Singh”)]. The promissory note contained a warrant- of-attorney empowering [Singh] to confess judgment upon a default committed by [appellants]. In addition to executing the entire promissory note, [appellants] affixed their respective initials upon two spaces immediately below the warrant-of-attorney. On August 21, 2018, [Singh] confessed judgment against [appellants] on the grounds that [appellants] had defaulted on the promissory note by failing to remit certain monthly payments since November 1, 2017. J. S37041/19 On October 30, 2018, [appellants] filed the instant petition to strike or open the judgment. [Appellants] aver that the judgment should be stricken because [Singh] claims conflicting amounts in the record. [Appellants] also aver that the judgment should be stricken because [Singh] failed to aver the occurrence of a default, as required under the promissory note. At last, [appellants] aver that the judgment should be stricken because prior to the entry of judgment, [Singh] failed to provide a notice of such an intent. .... [Appellants] seek to open the judgment on grounds that they are not sufficiently fluent in the English language, did not understand the terms contained in the promissory note, and did not knowingly waive their due process rights. In addition, [appellants] aver that the judgment should be opened because [Singh] has failed to set-off the judgment amount by $10,000.00 in reflection of two payments which [appellants] allegedly made before [Singh] entered the judgment. Trial court order, 11/27/18 at 1-2 n.1 (citations to record omitted). Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal to this court on December 27, 2018. The trial court did not order appellants to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), in which it incorporated its November 27, 2018 order. Appellants raise the following issues for our review: A. Did the trial court err in not opening the judgment where it was admitted by both parties that [appellants] were not represented by counsel and that [appellants] were not fluent in the English language? -2- J. S37041/19 B. Did the trial court err in not striking and/or opening the judgment where the fact of the note indicates uncertainty as ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals