Opinion
No. 2115 C.D. 2014
06-16-2015
Latch's Lane Owners Association v. Tawoos Bazargani, M.D., Appellant
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. (Dr. Bazargani) appeals pro se from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) granting the request of Latch's Lane Owners Association (Association) to revive a lien of judgment previously entered against Dr. Bazargani with regard to unpaid condominium fees. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I.
In March 2014, the Association filed a praecipe for writ of revival in the trial court seeking to revive the lien of judgment entered against Dr. Bazargani with regard to Docket No. 2007-06290. The Prothonotary issued a writ of revival containing a notice to plead within 20 days, which was served upon Dr. Bazargani, who requested an extension of at least three weeks to respond due to her chronic health condition. In support of her request for an extension, Dr. Bazargani averred that she would be receiving out-of-state medical treatment until June 9, 2014. Dr. Bazargani also filed a "motion in response to and objection about [the Association]'s praecipe for writ of revival and [the Association]'s writ of revival because such a motion is in violation of [Dr. Bazargani]'s due process rights." (Reproduced Record [R.R.] at 2a.) The Association filed an answer and a cross-motion to enter judgment of revival, along with a supporting brief. Subsequently, Dr. Bazargani sought an extension until June 30, 2014, as her medical treatment was continued until that date. Prior to oral argument, Dr. Bazargani filed three additional motions.
In the underlying matter (Bazargani I), the trial court entered judgment against Dr. Bazargani in the amount of $22,242.88, plus interest, at a rate of six percent per annum as of September 17, 2010, with respect to unpaid condominium fees. After the trial court entered judgment, Dr. Bazargani appealed to this Court and we affirmed. See Latch's Lane Owners Association v. Bazargani, (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 2408 C.D. 2009, filed April 13, 2010). Dr. Bazargani then initiated an action in the trial court (Bazargani II), alleging that the Association improperly assessed her late fees and interest and denied her the right to inspect, copy and review the Association's capital contribution file. She also asserted that the Association discriminated against her on religious grounds and defamed her. Following the Association's preliminary objections, the trial court dismissed Dr. Bazargani's lawsuit, finding that her claims regarding the Association's assessments and fees and its failure to allow her to inspect, copy and review the file were fully resolved in Bazargani I. It also dismissed her defamation and discrimination claims on other grounds, and this Court affirmed in all respects. See Bazargani v. Latch's Lane Owners Association, (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1777 C.D. 2011, filed February 6, 2012).
Dr. Bazargani initially attempted to file her second request for an extension under seal, but this document was not accepted for filing because she did not adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to filing papers under seal. Subsequently, Dr. Bazargani re-filed this request as part of the public record.
Specifically, Dr. Bazargani filed: (1) a "motion to object about being treated different than the other litigants by the Prothonotary Office and to object about [the Association]'s brief which has been filed and served while [Dr. Bazargani] has been in sick leave, therefore, out of the Pennsylvania," stating that she was receiving out-of-state medical treatment until June 9, 2014, and that the Prothonotary's Office violated her interests by rejecting her prior motion with regard to an extension; (2) a motion "to object to returning [Dr. Bazargani]'s affidavit/certificate of service without Prothonotary Office's certification following [Dr. Bazargani]'s motion...to object to Prothonotary Office's wrong treatment of the above claim and to object about filing [the Association]'s brief while [Dr. Bazargani] has been in sick leave and out of Pennsylvania"; and (3) an "objection to argument of October 1, 2014 while [Dr. Bazargani] has failed to respond through [the Association]'s half a page responses of August 27, 2014 and September 26, 2014 to the arguments documented through [Dr. Bazargani]'s motion of August 19, 2014 to be followed by [Dr. Bazargani]'s motion of September 22, 2014." (R.R. at 2a.)
At the time set for hearing of the motions, on October 1, 2014, Dr. Bazargani failed to appear. The trial court then entered an order denying Dr. Bazargani's objection to the Association's praecipe for writ of revival and granting the Association's cross-motion to enter judgment of revival to which Dr. Bazargani had failed to respond in the amount of $22,242.88, with interest, from September 17, 2010. The trial court explained that it revived the lien because Dr. Bazargani failed to assert that the underlying judgment does not exist or that it has been satisfied or discharged, the only defenses in a proceeding to revive a judgment lien. The trial court further denied Dr. Bazargani's remaining motions, noting that she had adequate time from June 30, 2014, when her medical treatment ended, until October 1, 2014, to prepare for argument, and that she was fully capable of filing a substantive response to the Association's writ of revival as demonstrated by her other plentiful filings. This appeal followed.
II.
On appeal, Dr. Bazargani argues that the trial court erred in entering a judgment of revival against her because: (1) due to her chronic illness, she was receiving out-of-state medical treatment until the end of June 2014; (2) while receiving out-of-state medical treatment, the Association filed and served its brief in support of its cross-motion to enter judgment of revival; (3) the Prothonotary's Office discriminated against her and treated her unfairly by refusing her second request for an extension for filing; (4) the Association's underlying suit, from which the judgment arose, is without merit; and (5) Dr. Bazargani has filed a discrimination complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission which issued a right-to-sue letter, and Dr. Bazargani's anticipated lawsuit will impact the instant matter.
It is well-settled law that the only defenses available to a writ of revival "are that the judgment does not exist, has been paid or has been discharged." Brooks v. Rudolph, 88 A.2d 907, 909 (Pa. 1952); see also Eiffert v. Giessen, 14 A.2d 130, 130 (Pa. 1940) (explaining that the available defenses "are limited to those arising after entry of the judgment, such as payment or other discharge"). In other words, an action to revive a judgment can be challenged only by a "suit on the judgment." Frill v. Frill, 49 A.2d 354, 356 (Pa. 1946). None of the arguments advanced by Dr. Bazargani assert such a defense.
As Judge Cercone explained in Green Ridge Bank v. Edwards:
The purposes of revival are to maintain the lien of a judgment, revive the lien of a dormant judgment, maintain a judgment as ripe for execution, or ripen a dormant judgment for execution. Since presumptions of payment, albeit rebuttable presumptions ordinarily, arise with the lapse of time, it is readily apparent that scire facias, or revival, is necessary principally to avoid such presumptions which would otherwise deny a judgment creditor the benefit of the record and, in some cases, permit other lien creditors from gaining priority should the lien of the judgment creditor lapse. In short, revival is nothing more than a procedural device to refresh a stale record, and the inquiry at such proceedings should be limited to whether anything has transpired [s]ince the judgment was entered which affects its revival.
Moreover, we agree with the trial court that Dr. Bazargani's medical treatment did not preclude her from attending oral argument in October 2014 or from filing in opposition to the Association's cross-motion to enter a judgment of revival, given many other filings demonstrate her ability to advance substantive arguments with the court. In any event, Dr. Bazargani admitted that she returned to Pennsylvania at the end of June 2014, and she certainly could have filed supplemental pleadings at that time and prepared for an argument scheduled for three months later. The fact that the Association filed its brief in support of its cross-motion while Dr. Bazargani was out-of-state is of no consequence because she was not precluded from responding to the brief at a later date.
Similarly, Dr. Bazargani argues that on June 6, 2014, the Prothonotary's Office improperly rejected her request for a further extension which she attempted to file under seal because her medical records were attached. Because her request was not accepted for filing, Dr. Bazargani claims that she was unable to file a response to the Association's cross-motion. While the Prothonotary is normally without authority to reject any properly filed pleading, see Pa. R.C.P. No. 205.2, the Prothonotary cannot accept a filing under seal until the filing party files a motion seeking leave to file documents under seal and obtains a court order granting the request. See generally Pa. R.C.P. No. 208.1. In any event, Dr. Bazargani's request for a further extension of time was accepted by the Prothonotary on June 17, 2014, when she filed it as part of the public record. While the trial court did not formally grant her request for an extension, it also did not deny the request. Had Dr. Bazargani attempted to file a response to the Association's cross-motion for judgment after June 30, 2014, pursuant to her request, she would not have been precluded from doing so. Moreover, nothing precluded her from raising any possible defense if she deigned to appear at the October 1, 2014 hearing.
Finally, as discussed above, Dr. Bazargani's arguments attacking the merits of the underlying lawsuit are unavailing as the judgment of revival may not be challenged on this ground. Likewise, a collateral attack on the merits of the underlying judgment, filed pursuant to a right-to-sue letter issued by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, does not relieve Dr. Bazargani from the judgment she owes.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order entering judgment of revival against Dr. Bazargani in the amount of $22,242.88, with interest, from September 17, 2010.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2015, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County dated October 20, 2014, in the above-captioned case is affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
372 A.2d 23, 27-28 (Pa. Super. 1977) (Cercone, J., concurring) (internal footnotes omitted).