Confession of Judgment in PA: Procedure & Defenses

Introduction

Pennsylvania remains one of only nine states that still permit creditors to obtain a confession of judgment, which is powerful because it allows a creditor to obtain and enforce a judgment without prior litigation or notice to the debtor, based on the debtor’s advance contractual authorization—typically contained in a commercial loan or lease agreement—to have judgment entered against them if they default.     

Once the creditor files the confession of judgment with the court, the judgment is immediately entered on the docket and has the same legal effect as any other final judgment, allowing the creditor to begin execution proceedings right away, such as garnishment or levy on assets.   

Unique Type of Judgment

In Pennsylvania, a judgment by confession is unlike a default judgment, which arises from a failure to respond to a lawsuit and may require additional steps such as prior notice or a hearing on damages before enforcement. However, a confessed judgment is self-executing upon entry and remains enforceable unless and until the debtor successfully petitions the court to strike or open the judgment and obtains a stay of execution. 

In the interim, “the lien of the judgment or of any levy or attachment shall be preserved while the proceedings to strike off or open the judgment are pending.” Pa.R.C.P. 2959(f).     

Commercial Use Only 

While the confession of judgment remains common in commercial lending, Pennsylvania law sharply restricts its use in  consumer transactions, reflecting due-process concerns about the waiver of notice and hearing. In fact, Rule 2950 defines the scope of the confession-of-judgment rules and expressly excludes consumer credit transactions.

Governing Case Law 

The continuing significance of these procedural rules is illustrated by the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s recent decision in Centric Bank v. Sciore, 293 A.3d 249 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025). That case involved a series of complex commercial loans and guaranties that ultimately resulted in confessed judgments entered against borrowers and guarantors following defaults during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision (described below) demonstrates both the strength of confession-of-judgment clauses in commercial lending and the difficulty borrowers face when attempting to strike or open such judgments.    

Throughout this article, we will reference the Centric Bank v Sciore case to bring these concepts into focus. 

 

I.  The Confession of Judgment Procedure

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 

The procedure is governed primarily by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 2950–2967, described below.  These rules regulate the entry of judgment, the form of pleadings, and the debtor’s available remedies.

Contractual Authorization  

A confession of judgment begins with a warrant of attorney clause embedded in a contract. This clause authorizes an attorney to appear on behalf of the debtor and confess judgment upon default.    

Pennsylvania courts strictly construe such clauses because they represent a waiver of constitutional due process rights.  

The creditor must comply with the pleading requirements contained in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2952, which requires a complaint per Rule 2955(a),which includes: 

• • The instrument authorizing confession
  • The amount due
  • The default triggering judgment
  • An itemized statement of damages
  • A copy of the warrant of attorney

Failure to strictly comply with these requirements may invalidate the judgment.

Entry of Judgment

Once the complaint is filed, the Prothonotary enters judgment immediately. See Rule 2956. Unlike ordinary litigation, no service of process or pre-judgment hearing is required.

The procedural authority for entering judgment upon filing appears in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2951.

After entry of judgment, notice must be served upon the debtor in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2958.

For example, in Centric Bank v. Sciore, the bank relied on these procedures after the borrowers stopped making payments beginning in March 2020. At that time, the parties had recently completed a restructuring of their obligations in 2019, consolidating earlier debts into new credit facilities, including a $2,050,000 loan and a $1,375,000 line of credit.       

A central component of the restructuring plan involved the anticipated sale of the borrowers’ Philadelphia radio station. The borrowers were expected to secure a sales agreement by March 15, 2020, which would provide funds for repayment. When the anticipated sale fell through during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and payments ceased, Centric Bank exercised the confession-of-judgment provisions in the loan documents and filed complaints seeking judgment for the unpaid balances.     

Although the underlying litigation in Centric Bank v. Sciore arose in Dauphin County, the procedural framework remains consistent statewide. The case illustrates the importance of strict compliance with Rule 2952 and similar local filing requirements because courts evaluating petitions to strike will review the face of the record to determine whether the creditor satisfied the procedural prerequisites for entry of judgment.

 

II. Consumer vs. Commercial Confessions of Judgment

Pennsylvania strictly limits confessions of judgment in consumer transactions.

Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2950, the confession of judgment rules do not apply to consumer credit transactions, defined as credit extended primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Accordingly:

Transaction Type	Confession of Judgment Allowed
Commercial loans	Yes
Business guaranties	Yes
Commercial leases	Yes
Consumer credit transactions	No

If a creditor attempts to confess judgment in a consumer transaction, the judgment is subject to being stricken as void.

This distinction was central to one of the arguments raised by the borrowers in Centric Bank v. Sciore. The defendants attempted to characterize aspects of the lending relationship as consumer transactions in order to invalidate the confession clauses. The Superior Court rejected this argument, finding that the loans were clearly commercial in nature. The loan proceeds were intended to finance business ventures and were executed in connection with multiple corporate entities controlled by the borrower.

 

III. Procedure To Challenge a Confessed Judgment

Pennsylvania provides two principal post-judgment remedies: a petition to strike and a petition to open. See Rule 2959. Importantly,  “[a] party waives all defenses and objections which are not included in the petition or answer.

Timing

While the exact timing can depend on the circumstances, a debtor must generally act promptly after receiving notice of the judgment to file a petition to open or strike it. Courts often consider whether the debtor acted without unreasonable delay when deciding whether to grant relief. Waiting too long after learning of the judgment can make it much more difficult to have the judgment opened: 

• • Pa.R.C.P. 2959(a)(3) provides the primary timing requirement. It states that when written notice of execution on a confessed judgment is served, “the petition shall be filed within thirty days after such service,” and “unless the defendant can demonstrate compelling reasons for the delay, a petition not timely filed shall be denied.”
  • In M & P Management, L.P. v. Williams, 937 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 2006), the Pennsylvania Superior Court explained that petitions filed outside the thirty day window are subject to denial absent compelling reasons for delay.   

The Effect of a Challenge 

A petition to open a confessed judgment is does not automatically open the judgment, even if timely filed, unlike a default judgment for failing to respond to a civil lawsuit. Nor does the creditor have any duty to advise debtor as to his rights upon his receipt of the judgment by confession. “A judgment shall not be stricken or opened because of a creditor’s failure to provide a debtor with instructions imposed by an existing statute, if any, regarding procedures to follow to strike a judgment . . .” Rule 2959(g).   

If, however, a court strikes or opens a confessed judgment, “the issues to be tried shall be defined by the complaint if a complaint has been filed, and by the petition, answer and the order of the court opening the judgment.” See Rule 2960.

 

IV. Common Defenses to Confessed Judgments

Lack of Authority in the Warrant of Attorney     

A warrant of attorney is the specific contractual provision that authorizes an attorney to confess judgment against the debtor if a default occurs. In Pennsylvania, this language must be clear, explicit, and conspicuous in the agreement. Courts strictly construe these provisions, and if the clause is ambiguous or improperly drafted, a court may strike the confessed judgment.      

Ambiguity is construed against the creditor. For example, recently, in Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 PA Super 41 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 3, 2026), the Superior Court noted that for a confession of judgment to be enforceable, the debtor must have been aware of it when incurring the debt.       

Following this rationale, “[t]here should be no doubt that the borrower signed the warrant and that he was conscious of the fact he was conferring a warrant upon the lender or lessor to confess judgment in the event of a breach.” Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Patel, 336 A.3d 984, 2903 EDA 2023, *6 (Pa. Super. filed March 18, 2025) (citing Ferrick v. Bianchini, 69 A.3d 642, 651 (Pa. Super. 2013)).     

Procedural Defects

Strict compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 2951–2958 is required.

Improper Calculation of Damages

Defendants often challenge:

• • Attorney’s fees
  • Interest calculations
  • Default penalties (A contract cannot “punish in PA)

Lack of Default

Borrowers may dispute whether the contractual conditions triggering judgment were satisfied.

In Centric Bank v. Sciore, the borrowers raised several additional defenses often asserted in commercial lending disputes. Among other arguments, they alleged that the bank failed to comply with “a duty of good faith and fair dealing” implied in every contract in Pennsylvania, by applying funds in borrower accounts to outstanding loan balances under a right-of-setoff provision.   

The Superior Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that Pennsylvania law does not impose a duty of “good faith and fair dealing” that would prevent a lender from enforcing its contractual rights.

As the court explained, Pennsylvania courts have refused to impose a duty of good faith and fair dealing that would prevent a lender from “adhering to its agreement with the borrower or enforcing its legal and contractual rights as a creditor.”

Consumer Transaction Defenses

If a transaction qualifies as consumer credit, the debtor may argue that the judgment violates Rule 2950.

Common arguments include:

• • The loan proceeds were used for personal purposes
  • The creditor mischaracterized the loan as commercial
  • The debtor lacked bargaining power

If successful, the judgment is stricken entirely.    

 

V. The Superior Court Decision in Centric Bank v. Sciore

OK, let’s now do a deep dive into the Superior Court case Centric Bank v. Sciore to put this in greater perspective.

By way of further background in that case:       

• Beginning in 2014, Centric Bank extended multiple loans and lines of credit to Michael Sciore and several entities under his control, including M.S. Acquisitions & Holdings, LLC, America’s Business Capital, LLC, and MEGA-Philadelphia, LLC. These loans funded various business ventures, including real estate investments and the operation of a Philadelphia radio station, mentioned above.  
• The parties executed numerous loan documents, guaranties, and security agreements, each containing warrants of attorney authorizing confession of judgment upon default. These provisions became central to the bank’s ability to rapidly enforce the debt when the loans later went into default.
• Centric Bank filed complaints in confession of judgment against borrowers.  

The borrower filed petitions to strike and open the judgment, raising two primary arguments:

1. The loan allegedly constituted a consumer credit transaction, rendering the confession clause invalid under Rule 2950.
2. The judgment included excessive attorney’s fees and damages.

The defendants also asserted additional defenses related to alleged lender misconduct, including claims that the bank improperly exercised its contractual rights and that the economic disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic should excuse the borrowers’ failure to perform under the loan agreements.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected these arguments.

 

VI. Significance of the Decision

Centric Bank v. Sciore reinforces several longstanding principles in Pennsylvania confession-of-judgment jurisprudence.

1. Look at the contract—courts rely heavily on the language of the loan documents to determine whether a transaction is commercial or consumer in nature.            
2. Assert Factual Defenses Specifically—borrowers seeking to open a confessed judgment must present specific factual defenses, not merely general allegations.
3. Courts Reward a Creditor’s Strict Compliance. Debt collectors who strictly comply with Pa.R.C.P. 2950–2967 and relevant local rules—such as those applied in Allegheny County—can continue to use confessions of judgment as an efficient mechanism for collecting commercial debt.
4. A Debtor’s Claim of Being “Pressured” Typically Falls Flat. The court rejected the claim that the borrower’s wife  had been improperly pressured into signing the loan documents, finding that she voluntarily executed the guarantee at her husband’s request.   
5. Choose Excuses For Non-Payment Carefully. The decision also demonstrates that external economic conditions, including disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, will not automatically excuse contractual obligations unless the borrower can show that performance became legally impossible.

 

VII.  Conclusion

Confession of judgment remains a uniquely powerful feature of Pennsylvania commercial litigation.  The procedure allows creditors to obtain rapid judgments while preserving limited avenues of relief for debtors through petitions to strike or open.       

The Superior Court’s decision in Centric Bank v. Sciore illustrates how courts apply these rules in practice, particularly when defendants attempt to re-characterize a commercial loan as a consumer transaction in order to invalidate a confessed judgment. The case also underscores the importance of carefully drafted loan documents and the significant challenges borrowers face when attempting to undo confessed judgments arising from sophisticated commercial lending arrangements.                         

 

Contact Us Today! 

Contact our litigation lawyers about any commercial or consumer-related debt dispute in Western Pennsylvania.  

412.342.0992

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Phone # and Best Time to Call You

Your Message

Please prove you are human by selecting the tree.

Please leave this field empty.

Δ

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions 

1. Does a confession of judgment affect a debtor’s credit or property?

Answer: 

Yes. Once entered, a confessed judgment becomes part of the public court record and may appear on credit reports. The judgment can also become a lien on the debtor’s real property in the county where it is entered (and potentially other counties if transferred), which may affect the debtor’s ability to sell or refinance property until the judgment is satisfied or otherwise resolved.            

2. Can a confessed judgment include attorney’s fees and costs?

Answer: 

Often it can. Many commercial agreements that contain confession-of-judgment clauses also allow the creditor to recover attorney’s fees, interest, and collection costs in addition to the principal amount owed. The amounts that may be included typically depend on the language of the contract and what is permitted under Pennsylvania law.

3. Can a confessed judgment be settled or satisfied after it is entered?

Answer: 

Yes. Like other civil judgments, a confessed judgment can be paid, settled, or otherwise resolved after entry. If the debtor pays the amount owed or the parties reach a settlement, the creditor is generally required to file a satisfaction of judgment with the court to show that the debt has been resolved and the judgment lien should be cleared.

3. How does a judgment by confession compare to a default judgment in PA? 

Answer: 

 

Ready to Learn More? 

Contact us for a consultation any time to learn more! 

412.342.0992

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Phone # and Best Time to Call You

Your Message

Please prove you are human by selecting the flag.

Please leave this field empty.

Δ