SDO v. Donahue

Donahue appealed from the order, which denied his petition to strike and/or open the confessed judgment entered in favor of SDO. The Superior Court affirmed. On appeal, Donahue argued the subject confessed judgment was infirm because the warrant of attorney was “exhausted” by previous use of the warrant to confess judgment against him. The Superior Court noted the warrant of attorney contained explicit language, which the lender to confess judgment against Donahue multiple times without exhausting the warrant.

SDO