J-S15018-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IRIS FENSTER 

Appellant

v.

ANDOVER REALTY CO., THE ESTEE 

LAUDER COMPANIES., INC. AND 

ESTEE LAUDER, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3311 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order September 13, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at 

No(s): December Term, 2015 No. 1478

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2018

Appellant, Iris Fenster, appeals from the September 13, 2017 Order 

denying her Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and, in the alternative, 

Reconsider the Motion for Summary Judgment. Because this appeal is 

untimely, we are constrained to quash it.

The facts of this case are largely immaterial to our disposition. Briefly, 

Appellant filed a Complaint against Appellees to recover damages allegedly 

sustained as a result of a slip and fall on Appellees’ property. Following an 

arbitration, Appellant received an award of $50,000, which Appellees appealed 

to the trial court for a trial de novo. 

While the matter was pending in the trial court, Appellant and Appellees 

engaged in settlement discussions via telephone, and appeared to have 

reached an agreement in principle. On March 31, 2017, Appellees’ counsel 
J-S15018-18

- 2 -

emailed to Appellant’s counsel a summary of the settlement discussions and 

requested confirmation of Appellant’s acceptance of the settlement for 

$13,000 under a general release by close of business on March 31, 2017. 

Appellant’s counsel never responded to Appellees’ counsel’s email and never 

agreed to a general release. See generally Trial Ct. Op., 11/28/17, at 1-2. 

Thus, the parties did not enter into a settlement agreement.1

On April 3, 2017, each Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Appellant did not file Responses to the Motions. On May 10, 2017, the trial 

court granted Appellees’ Motions.

Appellant did not appeal from the May 10, 2017 Orders. Instead, almost 

three months later, on July 28, 2017, Appellant filed a Petition to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement and, in the alternative, to Reconsider the Motion for 

Summary Judgment and Open the Judgment. Appellees filed a Response in 

opposition to this Petition. On September 13, 2017, the trial court denied 

Appellant’s Petition. Appellant filed the instant appeal.

Before reaching the merits of Appellant’s issues on appeal, we address 

a question relating to our jurisdiction. An appeal may be taken as of right 

from any final order of a court. Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). A final order is an order 

that disposes of all claims and of all parties or is expressly defined as a final 

order by rule or statute. Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). An order granting summary 

judgment in favor of all defendants is an appealable final order as it disposes 

____________________________________________

1 Because the parties did not enter into a settlement agreement, no such 

agreement appears in the certified record.
J-S15018-18

- 3 -

of all claims and all parties. Thus, to be timely, an appellant must file an 

appeal from an order granting summary judgment within 30 days of entry of 

the order. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (“[T]he notice of appeal . . . shall be filed 

within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”). 

The period for filing a timely appeal is not tolled by the filing of a motion for 

reconsideration unless the motion for reconsideration is filed within 30 days 

of the entry of the order and the trial court expressly grants reconsideration 

within that same 30 period. Haines v. Jones, 830 A.2d 579, 583-84 (Pa. 

Super. 2003). This Court is without jurisdiction to review the merits of the 

issues raised in an untimely appeal. See Valley Forge Center Assoc. v. 

Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245-46 (Pa. Super. 1997) (quashing appeal 

for untimeliness). 

Here, Appellant did not timely appeal from the trial court’s May 10, 2017 

Orders granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Rather, Appellant 

filed an untimely Motion for Reconsideration of those Orders almost three 

months after their entry and a Petition to enforce a non-existent settlement 

agreement. Because Appellant failed to timely appeal from the final Orders

granting summary judgment to Appellees, we quash this appeal. 

Appeal quashed.
J-S15018-18

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/18