Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-5610 CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : MONA PENSINGER, : DEFENDANT : NO. 09-5610 CIVIL IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, J., AND EBERT, J. ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW , this 10 day of January, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and review of the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTEDGRANTED that Plaintiff’s Motion is . and judgment is entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $6,270.71 By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Martin C. Bryce, Jr. Alexandre N. Turner Attorneys for Plaintiff Mona Pensinger Pro Se Defendant CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : MONA PENSINGER, : DEFENDANT : NO. 09-5610 CIVIL IN RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS, J., AND EBERT, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Ebert, J., January 10, 2011 - Procedural History On June 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint with the Magisterial District Court of Cumberland County alleging that Defendant was more than 30 days past due on a loan. Plaintiff sought judgment in the amount of $6,270.71. On July 22, 2009, a judgment was entered against Defendant in the amount of $6,432.21 which reflected a judgment amount of $6,260.71 plus judgment costs of $161.50. On August 12, 2009, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal from District Justice Judgment. On September 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging that Defendant was in default on her loan of $6,073.10 and was in arrears at least five payments. On October 7, 2009, Defendant filed a Counterclaim. On October 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed Preliminary Objections to Defendant’s Counterclaim. On March 3, 2010, Defendant filed a Reply to Preliminary Objections to the Counterclaim. On March 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Reply to New Matter and Counterclaim. On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 30, 2010, Defendant filed a Request for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 Statement of Facts Plaintiff is CitiFinancial Services, Inc., a consumer lender with an office located at 208 S. Conestoga Drive, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Defendant is Mona Pensinger, an adult individual residing at 32 Airport Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Defendant entered into a Loan Agreement with Plaintiff on November 19, 2007, in the amount of $5,850.05. Defendant entered into a second Loan Agreement with Plaintiff on February 5, 2009, for the principal amount of $6,073.10. Defendant used most of the proceeds of the 2009 loan to pay off the existing balance of the 2007 loan. The remainder of the proceeds of the 2009 loan were used for an optional life insurance policy and disbursed to Defendant as cash. Defendant made one payment on the 2009 loan on March 13, 2009, but as of the time of the complaint had made no other payments and was in default on the loan. Discussion Pursuant to Pa. C.S.A. 1035.2, after the relevant pleadings are closed, a party may move for summary judgment in two instances: (1) Whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report, or (2) If, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. Pa. C.S.A. 1035.2. The court may grant summary judgment only when the right to such judgment is clear and free from doubt. Sebast v. Kakouras, 915 A.2d 1147, 1153 (Pa. 2007). A 2 court shall enter judgment whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of cause of action that could be established by additional discovery. Swords v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 883 A.2d 562, 566 (Pa. 2005). Summary judgment is meant to eliminate the waste of time and resources of both litigants and the court in cases where a trial would simply be a useless formality. Liles v. Balmer, 567 A.2d 691, 692 (Pa. Super. 1989). In considering the merits of a motion for summary judgment, a court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850, 857 (Pa. 2005) (citing Jones v. SEPTA, 772 A.2d 435, 438 (Pa. 2001)). We find that summary judgment is appropriate because there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning Defendant’s responsibility for her loans, and it is clear that she is in default on the loan in question. Defendant raised no issues of material fact in any of her responses to Plaintiff. She appears to claim that she would not have signed the 2009 Loan Agreement if she had known the balance of the 2007 Loan Agreement, but it is clear that she did voluntarily enter into the 2007 Loan Agreement and, as such, is responsible for understanding the terms of that agreement. If Defendant attempts to allege fraud for any part of either agreement, she fails to do so with any specificity or legal basis. Defendant claims that Plaintiff failed to provide her with a full history of her account but provides no evidence of the requests nor does she state any legal claim related to this alleged refusal or any relationship between this allegation and the default status on her loan. Regardless of the allegations raised in Defendant’s counterclaim, Defendant 3 never disputes that she took out the 2009 loan and does not dispute that she is in default. Defendant instead admits that she made only one payment on the 2009 loan. Defendant presents no legal defense to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint and raises no issues disputing Plaintiff’s allegations. There is no issue of fact related to Plaintiff’s complaint that Defendant is in default. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the following Order shall be entered: AND NOW , this ___ day of January, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and review of the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTEDGRANTED that Plaintiff’s Motion is and judgment is entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $6,270.71. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Martin C. Bryce, Jr. Alexandre N. Turner Attorneys for Plaintiff Mona Pensinger Pro Se Defendant 4