M & P Management, LP v. Michael Williams, Aplt. (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-14-2007] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT M&P MANAGEMENT, L.P., Appellee v. MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 41 EAP 2006 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court dated May 16, 2006 at No. 1303 EDA 2005 ARGUED: March 7, 2007. CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: November 20, 2007 I agree with the majority that the time limit set forth in Pa.R.C.P. No. 2959(a)(3) does not apply to a petition seeking relief from a judgment by confession that is allegedly void. This conclusion is a matter of rule construction. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 127(a), 101. In my view, it was the intent of this Court in adopting Pa.R.C.P. No. 2959(a)(3) to continue the long-standing distinction under the common law between voidable and void confessed judgments, and to retain the rule that while petitions challenging the former are subject to the doctrine of laches, petitions challenging the latter may be brought at any time. See Romberger v. Romberger, 139 A.2d 159, 160 (Pa. 1927). That is not to say, as the majority indicates, that this Court did not have the authority to extend the time limit in Pa.R.C.P. No. 2959(a)(3) to petitions seeking relief from a confessed judgment that is alleged to be void. I know of no principle that would have prevented this Court from doing so, if that had been our intent. Messrs. Justice Castille and Baer join this concurring opinion. [J-14-2007] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.