J

- A21009

- 21

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 B.T. MANAGEMENT, LLC

Appellant

v. 7065

- A WILLIAM PENN HIGHWAY, LLC : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1948 EDA 2020 Appeal from the Order Entered September 22, 2020 , i n the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County , Civil Division at No(s): CV

- 48

- 2014

- 3772

. BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 4, 2022 In this dispute over the sale of commercial realty, B.T. Management, LLC appeals from the order enter ing a nonsuit against it

. Because that order
is not a final judgment , we lack jurisdiction and quash this appeal. B.T. filed a multi

- count complaint against 7065

- A William Penn Highway, Inc. (“Owner”) alleging that Owner reneged on various written
contracts to se ll B.T. three plots of land

. After discovery , the trial court entered two orders grant ing partial summary judgment to Owner on some of B.T.’s claims. O ne contract remained in dispute , and t he trial court scheduled a jury trial for September 21, 2020.
On that day, Dr. Thaler , the lead principal of B.T ., failed to appear . Dr. Thaler’s attorney said his client would appear for trial the following day , and the court empaneled a jury without him. The next m orning , however,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- A21009

- 21

- 2

-

Dr. Thaler still did not appear . Upon a motion from Owner , the trial court
entere d an order dismissing the case. The following day , September 23, 2020, Owner praeciped for entry of judgment against B.T. O n October 21, 2020, B.T. appealed to this Court

. For the reasons that follow, we quash this appeal as premature. Whether an appellant has filed a timely appea l implicates the subject

matter jurisdiction of this Court

. See , e.g., Sass v. Amtrust Bank, 74 A.3d 1054, 1063 (Pa. Super. 2013). Thus , we may inquire into the timeliness of an appeal su a sponte

. See Murphy v. International Druidic Society, 152 A.3d 286, 289 (Pa. Super. 2015). This issue presents

“ a pure question of law, as such, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. ” Johnson v. Johnson , 864 A.2d 1224, 1228 ( Pa. Super. 2004)

. As mentioned above, the trial court granted Owner’s motion to dismiss the case when Dr. Thaler , on behalf of B.T. , did not appear for the jury trial.
T he trial court erroneously styled its order as a grant of a directed verdict.
U nder Pa.R.C.P. 218, such an order is actually a grant of a nonsuit , which is explicitly subject to post

- trial

- motion practice

.

“ Where a case is called for trial, if without satisfactory excuse a plaintiff is not ready, the court may enter a nonsuit on motion of the defendant . . . .” P a.R.C.P. 218 (a) (emphasis added). The “ nonsuit is subject to the filing of a motion under Rule 2 27.1(a)(3) for post

- trial relief to remove the nonsuit . . . .” Pa.R.C.P. 218 (c) Note

.J

- A21009

- 21

- 3

-

Under Rule 227.1(a)(3), B.T. had ten days ( i.e. , until October 2, 2020) in which to seek such post

- trial relief. In fact, B.T. had to seek post

- trial relief to prese rve its issues for appellate review and to develop a record to prove whether Dr. Thaler’s absence on the da y of trial was justified. See 10
S TANDARD P A. P RACTICE 2d § 61 : 3 at 187

- 89; see also Pa.R.C.P. 218 (c) Explanatory Comment

– 1993 (stating, the party facing nonsuit for failure to appear “may present the excuse through a motion to remove the nonsuit . . . [this] will result in a record, which will enable an appellate court to review the trial court’s action to determine if there has been an abuse o f discretion.”). Here, Owner did not giv e B.T. ten days to seek post

- trial relief and develop a record potentially justifying Dr. Thaler’s absence on September 22, 2020 . Instead, Owner filed a snap praecipe for judgment the very next day, on September 23, 2020, i.e. , well before the time for seeking a new trial had expired . “ The judgment, having been entered before the time for filing a new trial motion had expired, is void and of no legal effect. ” Moore v. Quigley , 168 A.2d 334, 336 ( Pa. 19 61)

. “ A void judgment is no judgment at all

. ” M & P Mgmt., L.P. v. Williams , 937 A.2d 398, 401 ( Pa. 2007)

. B ecause there is no lawful judgment entered from which B.T. could file an appeal , t his appeal is premature . W e lack jurisdiction to decide the cas e at this time

. Appeal quashed.J

- A21009

- 21

- 4

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/4/2022