J

### -A10022-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONALTRUST COMPANY

v.
KENNETH TAGGART SEE 

### SUPERIOR COURT 

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 IN THE SUPERIOR COURTOF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1037 EDA 2018 

### Appellant Appeal 

### from the Order Entered February 22, 2018 In the Court 

### of Common Pleas 

### of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 

### 2010-07592
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: 

### FILEDAUGUST 

### 12, 

### 2019 Kenneth 

### Taggart appeals 

### from the order entered February 22, 2018, and docketed February 27,2018, inthe BucksCountyCourt ofCommon Pleas, denying his 

### petitionto 

### strike a 

### discontinuancefiled by Deutsche Bank National 

### Trust Company 

### ("Deutsche Bank"), which ended Deutsche Bank's 

### mortgage foreclosure action 

### againstTaggart. For the reasons below, we 

### affirm. Thefacts and 

### convoluted procedural 

### historyunderlyingTaggart's appeal
are asfollows. OnJuly27, 2010, Deutsche Bankfiled a 

### complaint in 

### mortgage foreclosure against Taggart, alleging he failed to make any 

### mortgage payments on his 

### property located at 45 Heron Road in Holland, Pennsylvania, since March 1, 2009. 

### See Complaint, 

### 7/27/2010, at

### III 2-5. Deutsche Bank averred 

### thatTaggart still owed more than 

### $423,000.00 in 

### principal, 

### interest and fees. 

### See

### id. at 116. 

### Taggart 

### initially removedthe actionto federal 

### court,J

### -A10022-19
however, in Octoberof 2011, a federal

### districtcourtjudge remanded the case back to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. 

### Thereafter, Taggart filed
an answer 

### with new 

### matter and a 

### counterclaim in November of 2012, and Deutsche Bank filed 

### preliminary objections in December of 2012. 

### Taggart then filed a 

### motion 

### for

### judgmenton the pleadings and an 

### answerto Deutsche Bank's 

### preliminary objections in Januaryof2013. No

### furtheraction wastaken bythe parties orthe 

### courtfor the next two years. OnJuly 7, 2015, the

### trial courtentered a 

### preliminarytermination order, pursuant to Bucks County 

### Administrative Order No. 29,1 which informed the parties the 

### court intended to 

### terminate the 

### matter for lack of prosecution in 45 days unless one ofthe

### following actionsoccurred: (1) Deutsche Bankfiles

a 

### praecipe to 

### settle, discontinue or end the 

### matter; (2) the parties file an agreed case 

### management order; or (3) 

### either party files a case status 

### report and 

### request 

### for a hearing. 

### See Order, 

### 7/7/2015. On 

### August 20, 2015 

### (the 44th day 

### after entry of the court's 

### preliminary termination order), Deutsche Bankfiled the following 

### "Statement of

### Intention to 

### Proceed:"

1 Bucks County 

### Administrative Order No. 29 

### permits the court 

### administrator to clear the docket of any pending civil 

### matter "in which 

### there has been no 

### activity reported onthe docket 

### for a period of morethan two

### years[.]" Bucks County 

### Administrative Order No. 29 at 11 1. As will be discussed 

### infra, the 

### order

### further provides 

### forthe 

### reactivation of any 

### matterterminated pursuant to the order by 

### petition and rule 

### submitted to the 

### trial court. 

### See 

### id. at 11 6.


## -2J

### -A10022-19

This case is in active Litigation. [Deutsche Bank] intends to proceed 

### with this 

### matter; therefore it should remain on active status. 

### Statement of 

### Intention to Proceed, 

### 8/20/2015. Nevertheless, on 

### September 10, 2015, the 

### trial courtentered an 

### order

### terminating this matter.2 Notice 

### of the 

### termination order was sent to 

### the parties on 

### September 29, 2015, 

### pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 236.3 

### Thereafter, on December 21, 2015, Deutsche Bank filed a 

### motion to 

### reinstate its action. 

### See Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate, 

### 12/21/2015. Specifically, Deutsche Bank

### averred: (1) it "was required to place the 

### instant 

### matter on hold due to associated 

### protracted issues between the 

### parties[;]" (2) "counsel never received a copy of the 

### [September 10, 

### 2015,] order 

### terminating the

### case[;]" and 

### (3) Taggart has

### "enjoyed the use and possession ofthe 

### property, despite 

### [the] fact

### that the 

### mortgage has been in 

### defaultfor a period of

### over six (6)

### years." See 

### id. at 

### III 6, 11, 17. On January 19, 2016, Taggart, proceeding 

### pro se,4 filed a 

### response/opposition to Deutsche Bank's 

### motion to 

### reinstate, and requested 

### the court strike the motion as 

### untimely

2

### Although Deutsche Bank 

### notified the 

### trial court of its 

### intent to proceed 

### with the foreclosure action 

### within the requisite 45 days, it did not 

### follow the procedure outlined in the July 7, 2015, order.

3 Rule 236 requires the 

### prothonotary to give 

### written notice to the parties of the 

### entry ofany

### order, and record the dateofsuch notice onthe docket. 

### See Pa.R.C.P. 

### 236(a)(2), (b).

4At

### varioustimes, Taggart has proceeded both

### with counsel and 

### pro se in 

### this matter. He has also filed

### pro se 

### documents while represented by counsel. 

## -3J

### -A10022-19

filed. 

### See Response/Opposition to Motion to Reinstate, 

### 1/19/2016. He insisted 

### that Deutsche Bank had to proceed via Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 

### 237.3(b) and 3051, which 

### dictate relief from a

### judgement of non 

### pros, and was required to file its 

### petition within 10 days of the 

### entry of 

### judgment on the docket. 

### See Pa.R.C.P. 

### 237.3(b)(1). On October 6, 2016, the 

### trial court entered thefollowing order, 

### granting Deutsche Bank's 

### motion: AND NOW,

### this 6thdayofOctober, 2016, upon 

### consideration of the 

### "Motion to 

### Reinstate" filed by 

### Plaintiff, [Deutsche Bank], and the response 

### thereto filed by Defendant, 

### [Taggart], it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED

### that Plaintiff's Motionto Reinstate is GRANTED. Order, 

### 10/6/2016. On October 17, 2016, 

### Taggart, now represented by counsel, filed both a 

### motion 

### for reconsideration and a notice of appeal. By 

### orderenteredJanuary 9, 2017,this Courtgranted Deutsche Bank's

### application to quash theappeal, because it was

### from an 

### interlocutory order. 

### See Docket No. 3414 EDA 2016. Next, 

### Taggart asserts he 

### attempted to file a 

### praecipe in 

### the 

### trial court to 

### enter 

### judgment in his 

### favor on May 9, 2017.5 However, he claims the 

### prothonotary refused to accept his praecipe, but instead, 

### incorrectly noted on

5 We note the purported praecipe is in 

### the reproduced record, 

### but not in the certified record. However, 

### "under the Pennsylvania Rules 

### of Appellate Procedure, any 

### document which is not 

### part ofthe 

### officially certified record is deemed 

### non-existent-a deficiency which 

### cannot be remedied 

### merely by including copies 

### of the missing 

### documents in a 

### brief or in the reproduced 

### record." 

### Parr v. 

### Ford 

### Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682, 695 n.10 (Pa. Super. 

### 2014) (en banc) 

### (quotation 

### omitted),appealdenied, 123A.3d 331 (Pa. 

### 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 557 (U.S. 

### 2015). 

## -4J

### -A10022-19

the docket: 

### "Order Entered Vacating 

### Termination See Court Order of 

### 10/7/16." See Docket Entry No. 99, 

### 5/9/2017. In response, 

### Taggartfiled a 

### petition for

### writof mandamus in 

### this Court, in which he asserted: (1) the 

### trial court's October 6, 2017, 

### order reinstating the action, did notvacate the 

### prior order entered 

### September 10, 2015, 

### terminating the 

### action; (2) therefore, Deutsche Bankwas required tofile a 

### motion

### for reconsideration

### within 30days of the October 6, 2016, 

### reinstatement order; (3) when Deutsche Bank failed to do so, the

### trialcourt lost

### jurisdiction ofthe

### matter, and 

### Taggartwas 

### entitled to the 

### entry of 

### judgment in his 

### favor; and 

### (4) the 

### prothonotary had no 

### discretion to refuse to 

### enter his praecipe 

### forjudgment.6 See Docket No. 56 EDM 2017, Petition 

### for Writ of Mandamus, 

### 5/19/2017, at 1111 

### 20-23, 27. This Court denied the 

### petition on July 9, 2017. 

### See Docket No. 56 EDM 2017, Order, 

### 7/9/2017 (noting Superior Court has no power to issue 

### writ of mandamus to lower 

### court unless 

### ancillary to 

### Superior Court proceedings). Taggart did not appeal

### that ruling. On November 16,2017, Deutsche Bankfiled a 

### praecipe in 

### the

### trial court to 

### mark the case discontinued and ended, 

### without prejudice. Taggart filed a 

### petition to 

### strike the discontinuance on December 8, 2017, which the 

### trial court denied on February 22, 2018. Notice 

### ofthe 

### entry ofthe order was not

6 On June 16, 2017,

### Taggart also filed a 

### petition for

### writ of 

### mandamus in the Commonwealth Court, seeking the same relief. 

### See 270 MD 2017. 

### That 

### matter is 

### still pending. 

## -5J

### -A10022-19

sentto the parties until February27, 2018. 

### See Pa.R.C.P. 236. 

### Taggartfiled

a

### pro se

### motion 

### forreconsideration on March 16, 2018,followed by

### this

### timely, counseled appeal on March 28, 2018.7 

### Taggart raisesthe following two issues on appeal: (1)

### whetherthe 

### trial court erred when it granted Deutsche Bank's 

### untimely and 

### improper petition to 

### reinstatethe case; and (2)

### whetherthe

### prothonotary erred when it rejected Taggart's praecipe to 

### enter final

### judgment pursuantto Pa.R.C.P. 1039.8 

### Preliminarily, we note 

### Taggart filed 

### this appeal 

### from the order 

### that denied his 

### petition to

### strikeoff Deutsche Bank'sdiscontinuance. Nevertheless, 

### Taggart acknowledges in his 

### brief

### that he 

### "is not appealing the Denial 

### ofthe Petition to Modify

### the Discontinuancewhich is 

### subject to 

### the discretion of the 

### trial court."9 Taggart's Briefat 1. Rather, he is 

### challenging: (1) theOctober

The 

### trial court did not 

### order Taggart to file a concise 

### statement of errors complained of on appeal 

### pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

### 1925(b). The 

### court did, however, file an opinion on May 10, 2018.

8 We note Rule 1030 was rescinded 

### effectiveJanuary 1, 1984. 

### See Pa.R.C.P. 1039. The Note refers 

### litigant to Pa.R.C.P. 

### 227.4 

### ("Entry ofJudgment Upon Praecipe of a 

### Party").

9 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229 provides 

### that 

### "[a] discontinuance shall be the exclusive method of

### voluntarytermination of an 

### action, in whole or in 

### part, by 

### the 

### plaintiff before 

### commencement of the 

### trial." Pa.R.C.P. 

### 229(a). The Rule

### further provides however, 

### that a 

### court "upon petition and 

### after notice, may 

### strike off a 

### discontinuance in 

### order to 

### protect the rights of any 

### partyfrom unreasonable inconvenience, 

### vexation, harassment, expense, or 

### prejudice." Pa.R.C.P. 

### 229(c). Nevertheless,

### "[t]he authority to 

### strike off a 

### discontinuance is vested in the sound 

### discretion of

### the 

### trial court, and wewill not reverse absent an abuse of 

### that discretion." 

### Nastasiak v. 

### Scoville Enterprises, Ltd., 618A.2d 471, 472 (Pa. Super. 1993) 

### (quotation

### omitted). 

## -6J

### -A10022-19

6, 2016, 

### order ofthe 

### trial court, which 

### reinstated the foreclosure action 

### after it was 

### administrativelyterminated, and 

### (2) the 

### prothontary's refusal to 

### enter 

### judgment in his

### favor on May 9, 2017, aswell as an alleged 

### improper notation
onthe docket on

### that date. 

### See 

### id. We also recognize 

### that on October23, 2018, Deutsche Bankfiled in 

### this Court a 

### motion to quash 

### the appeal, asserting 

### Taggart "abandoned the only 

### timely appealed issue before this 

### Court[,]" that is, the 

### propriety ofthe order denying his 

### petitionto 

### strikeoffthediscontinuance. Motion to QuashAppeal, 

### 10/23/2018, at ¶ 31. Deutsche Bank claimed 

### Taggart was 

### attempting to obtain review of 

### "two unappealable issues 

### that are long since 

### time

### -barred." 

### Id. On November 19, 2018, 

### this Court denied 

### the motion to quash 

### without prejudice to Deutsche Bankto raisethe issue again in its

### appellate brief before the 

### merits panel. Order, 

### 11/19/2018. We note Deutsche Bank has not requested we quash 

### this appeal in its appellee brief. Nevertheless, we agree 

### with Taggart 

### that the 

### propriety of the 

### trial court's October 6, 2016, 

### order granting Deutsche Bank's 

### motion to 

### reinstate theaction is 

### properly before us. 

### See Taggart's Brief at 1. 

### Although a panel of 

### this Court quashed 

### Taggart's prior appeal 

### from the October 6, 2016, 

### order as 

### interlocutory, Taggart may now challenge the 

### court's decision to 

### reinstate the 

### matter since a final 

### order in 

### this 

### matter has been entered on 

### the docket. See 

### Rohm & 

### Haas Co. v. 

### Lin, 992 A.2d 132, 149 (Pa. Super. 2010) ("Once an appeal is filed 

### from a final order, all 

### prior 

### interlocutory orders become 

### reviewable."), cert. denied,


## -7J

### -A10022-19

565 U.S. 1093 

### (2011). With regard to 

### Taggart's issue concerning the 

### prothonotary, as will be discussed 

### infra, we find 

### that claim is not 

### properly on appeal. 

### Taggart's 

### first issue on appeal challenges the 

### trial court's October 6, 2016, 

### order reinstating Deutsche Bank's 

### foreclosure action. Because 

### this specific claim involves an 

### interpretation of 

### the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, we are presented 

### with "a question of law, 

### for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is 

### plenary." 

### Roth v. 

### Ross, 85 A.3d 590, 592 (Pa. Super. 

### 2014). Taggart explains 

### thatwhen Deutsche Bankfailed to 

### complywith any 

### of the three options set 

### forth in 

### the 

### preliminary termination order, but rather, filed a 

### "Statementof

### Intentionto Proceed,"the

### trialcourtproperlyterminated the action. 

### SeeTaggart's Brief at 

### 24-25. Accordingly, he insists the 

### court's September 10, 2015, 

### termination order was a final order, and the 

### court lost 

### jurisdiction in 

### the 

### matter 30 days 

### later when Deutsche Bank failed to appeal
or

### take any 

### other action. 

### See 

### id. at 21, 23. 

### Taggart

### further arguesthe 

### court had no 

### authorityto 

### reinstatethe 

### matter pursuantto Pennsylvania Rule ofCivil Procedure 

### 230.2 

### ("Termination of 

### Inactive Cases"), because 

### that Rule was suspended during 

### the time the relevant periods in this case.1° 

### See

### id. at25-

1° 

### Indeed, Rule 

### 230.2, which was adopted in 2003, was suspended on April 23, 2014. 

### It was 

### later reinstated and amended on December 9, 2015, 

### with an 

### effective date of December 31, 2016. 

### See Pa.R.C.P. 

### 230.2, Credits. Here, the 

### order 

### terminating the case was entered on 

### September 10, 2015, and the 

## -8J

### -A10022-19

26. Rather, he asserts 

### "[t]he proper Rule 

### that would 

### apply to the proposed 

### Reinstatement would be

... Pa.R.C.P. 

### 3051[,]" which applies to 

### relief from a 

### judgment of non 

### pros. 

### Id. at 26. 

### Taggart insists Deutsche Bank failed to 

### "properly plead[] or 

### meet the standards" 

### for relief under this Rule. 

### Id. Specifically, he contends Deutsche Bankfailed to provide evidence

### that (1) its 

### petition was

### timelyfiled, (2) it had a 

### meritoriousaction, and 

### (3) the record of the proceedings do not 

### demonstratethere was a lack ofdue diligence on 

### the part of the 

### plaintiff, the 

### plaintiff failed to show a compelling reason 

### for the delay and the delay has caused actual 

### prejudice to the defendant. 

### See

### id. at 32, 

### citing Pa.R.C.P. 

### 3051(c). Taggart insists Deutsche Bank's 

### petition for reinstatement was, in 

### actuality, an 

### untimely motion for reconsideration. 

### See 

### id. at 

### 32-34. In response to 

### Taggart's prior appeal 

### from the October 2016 

### reinstatement order, the 

### trial court filed an opinion on December 21, 2017. The

### court

### first recognized

### that Rule 

### 230.2 wassuspended atthe 

### relevanttimes in 

### this 

### matter. See Trial Court Opinion, 

### 12/21/2016, at 4. 

### Therefore, the court proceededto analyze Deutsche Bank's 

### reinstatement motion under Rule 

### 3051(c), which governs the opening of a 

### judgment of non pros. 

### See 

### id. Unlike 

### Taggart's assertion, however, the 

### trial court found Deutsche Bank's 

### motion to be 

### meritorious. See 

### id. at 5 (concluding (1) it was unclear 

### from
order reinstating the case was entered on October 6, 2016, both before the 

### effective date 

### ofthe Rule's 

### reinstatement. 

## -9J

### -A10022-19

the docket 

### whether Deutsche Bankwas served 

### with the 

### termination order;11 (2) the pleadings 

### clearlydemonstrate Deutsche Bank has a 

### meritorious claim; (3) the docket 

### demonstrated the delay in 

### activity was 

### "the result of pending 

### motions filed by both 

### parties[;]" and 

### (4) 

### "Taggart is 

### benefiting, 

### rather than being 

### prejudiced, by the delay, as it allows his continued occupancy ofthe 

### property despite his alleged 

### default in 

### payment ofthe 

### mortgage."). The

### court also noted 

### that even if it had considered the 

### petition under Rule 

### 230.2, it would 

### arrive at the same decision. 

### See 

### id. at 5-6. In its brief, however, Deutsche Bankcontendsthe Rule applicableto the 

### termination and 

### reinstatement of the present 

### matter is Rule 

### of Judicial 

### Administration 1901. 

### See Deutsche Bank's Brief at 10-12. We agree. Here, the

### trial court acknowledged 

### that it proceeded 

### pursuant to Bucks County

### Administrative Order No. 29, when itentered a 

### preliminarytermination orderonJuly 7, 2015. 

### SeeTrial Court Opinion, 

### 12/21/2016, at 2. 

### That local Rule was 

### promulgated pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule 

### of Judicial 

### Administration 1901, which provides, in 

### pertinent part: 

### It isthe policyofthe unified

### judicial system to bring each pending 

### matter to a final conclusion as 

### promptly as possible 

### consistently with the character ofthe 

### matter and the resources ofthe system. Where a 

### matter has been 

### inactive 

### for an unreasonable period of

11 

### Although the docket indicates Pa.R.C.P. 236 notice was senton 

### September 29, 2015, the 

### trial court correctly observed 

### that "a 

### Certificate of Service was not attached to the

### Termination Order." Trial Court Opinion, 

### 12/21/2016, at 5.

- 10 -J

### -A10022-19 time, the 

### tribunal, on its own 

### motion, shall 

### enter an 

### appropriate orderterminating the matter. Pa.R.J.A. 

### 1901(a). Subsection

### (b)(1) ofthe Rule 

### directsthecourts ofcommon pleas to enact local rulesto 

### implementthis policy. 

### See Pa.R.J.A. 

### 1901(b)(1). Bucks County

### Administrative Order No. 29was 

### promulgated to 

### implementthe 

### termination policy in Rule 1901. Order No. 29 directs the 

### court 

### administratorto compile, each 

### month, a list of pending civil 

### matters "in which 

### there has been no 

### activity reported on the docket

### for a period ofmore than two

### years[.]" B.C.A. Order No. 29 

### at (1). The 

### administrator mustthen give

### written notice to the parties

### thatthe 

### matter will be 

### terminated in 30 days 

### "unless a 

### certification of active 

### status is filed before the 

### termination date." 

### Id. at 

### (2). 

### If no response is filed 

### with the requisite period, the Order stated: 

### "the court

### administrator shall 

### provide the 

### prothonotary with a list of all cases to be

### terminated and it shall then be the 

### duty of the 

### prothonotary to 

### mark the dockets 

### accordingly[.]" 

### Id. at 

### (5). However, Order No. 29 also provides

### forthe 

### reactivation of

### terminated cases: Any 

### application to 

### reactivate any 

### matterterminated in accordance 

### with the provisions of paragraph (5) shall be 

### submitted to and decided bythe assigned Judge. Said 

### application shall be made by 

### petition and rule. The Court, in acting upon any such 

### application, may proceed solely on the basis 

### ofthe 

### petition, if no answer has been filed. 

### If an answer has been 

### filed, the application should proceed in accordance 

### with the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 209 and B.C.R.C.P. 

### *266. No 

### order authorizing reactivation ofany 

### matter terminated pursuantto these Rules shall be 

### effective except upon 

### payment of the 

### prevailing fee 

### for commencement of actions chargeable bythe Office ofthe 

### prothonotary. B.C.A. Order No. 29 at 

### (6).J

### -A10022-19

Here, it is 

### evidentthetrial courttook a common sense approach to the 

### matter. Although Deutsche Bankdid notfollow thespecific 

### instructions in the 

### preliminary termination order, it did, in 

### fact, file a 

### statement of its 

### intention to proceed 

### with the foreclosure action

### within the required 45 days. 

### Although the court still, 

### initially, terminated the action, it acted 

### within its 

### discretion when it 

### reinstated the case upon Deutsche Bank's 

### petition, which averred 

### (1) Deutsche Bank never received the final 

### termination order, (2) it had placed the 

### matter on hold due to "associated protracted issues between the 

### parties," and 

### (3) the mortgage has remained in default.12 Deutsche Bank's Motion to Reinstate, 

### 12/21/2015, at 1111 5, 6, 11. 

### See

### also B.C.A. Order No. 29 at 

### (6); Pa.R.J.A. 1901, Note 

### ("Where a 

### partyobjects to the

### termination ofan 

### inactive 

### matter, it is intended 

### that the court exercise its 

### judicial discretion."). In its December 2016 opinion, the 

### court emphasized: 

### Taggart has 

### allegedly been in 

### default in 

### mortgage payments for almost eight (8) years. The delay in prosecuting the case only served to 

### benefit 

### [him], as he 

### continues to occupy his residence despite

### the fact

### that no 

### payments have 

### allegedly been made since March 2009. Any 

### prejudice caused by the 

### failure to file a Motion to Reinstate 

### within 

### thirty (30) days is 

### clearly outweighed by the prejudice caused by

### Taggart's alleged 

### default.

12 We note 

### Taggart asserts in his Reply Brief

### that Deutsche Bank did not pay the fee upon 

### reinstatement as required in Subsection (6) of Order No. 29. 

### Taggart's Reply Brief at 17. However, it does not appear

### Taggart ever made this 

### argument before the

### trial court, nordid he provide any 

### proof

### thatthe fee was not paid. 

### Accordingly, we decline to find 

### error on 

### that basis.

- 12 -J

### -A10022-19

Trial Court Opinion, 

### 12/19/2016, at 6. Under these 

### circumstances, the 

### reinstatement of Deutsche Bank's 

### foreclosure action did not 

### constitute an 

### error orabuse of 

### discretion. In his second issue, 

### Taggart asserts 

### the 

### prothonotary erred when it rejected a pracipe to 

### enter

### judgment in his 

### favorwhich he presented in May of 2017. We find 

### this 

### matter is not 

### properly before us. The 

### certified record contains no evidence to 

### support Taggart's allegation. Indeed, when the 

### prothonotary purportedly refused to 

### enter 

### judgment, Taggart did not seek 

### relief in 

### the 

### trial court. Rather, he filed the mandamus action in 

### this Court.13 In 

### fact, Taggart never raised 

### this claim in the 

### trial court, nor did he ask the 

### trial court to 

### direct the 

### prothonotary to 

### enter 

### judgment. Accordingly, this claim is not 

### properly before us 

### for review. 

### See 

### Harber Philadelphia Ctr. 

### CityOfficeLtd. v. 

### LPCILtd. 

### P'ship, 764A.2d 1100, 1105 (Pa. Super. 

### 2000) ("The 

### Superior Court,as an 

### error-correcting court, maynot 

### purport to reverse

a 

### trial court's orderwhere the only basis 

### for a finding of 

### error is a claim 

### that the responsible 

### party never gave the 

### trial court an 

### opportunity to 

### consider."), appealdenied, 782A.2d 546 (Pa. 2001).14

13 We emphasize 

### that when 

### this Court denied 

### relief, Taggart did not appeal 

### that ruling.

14 

### Taggart, 

### similarly, never requested the 

### trial court to 

### correct the May 9, 2017, docket 

### notation, which he asserts was 

### improperly entered by the 

### prothonotary. Therefore,

### that claim, too, is not 

### properly before this Court.

- 13 -J

### -A10022-19

Order

### affirmed. Taggart'sApplicationtoTakeJudicial Notice is Denied.'5 Judgment Entered.

J seph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary

Date: 

### 8/12/19

15

### Afteroral

### argument, onJune 14, 2019,

### Taggartfiled an 

### application

### for relief, asking the panel to 

### take

### judicial notice of

### "the docket, case law, and 

### relevant pleadings

### that are crucial tothe 

### adjudication of

### the issues

### that arethe

### subject of 

### this appeal" pursuant to "Pa Rule 

### 201." Application 

### for Relief, 

### 6/14/2019, at 1. However, his 

### "application" is 

### essentially a rehash of his 

### appellate brief. Moreover, our research has uncovered no Pennsylvania Rule 201 

### that permits such a pleading.

- 14 -