J-A31031-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

KATHY CUNLIFFE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LISA CREEDON 

 Appellant No. 1169 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered March 2, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division

at No(s): 00186, April Term, 2005

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MOULTON , J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2016

Appellant, Lisa Creedon, appeals from the order entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying her petition to strike 

judgment. Appellant contends the trial court erred in holding that the only 

remedy from an arbitration award was an appeal de novo. We affirm.

We adopt the trial court’s recitation of the facts and procedural history 

of this case.

On April 4, 2005 [Appellee, Kathy] Cunliffe instituted 

suit against Defendant[] Daimler Chrysler Corporation and 

[Appellant], for injuries arising from a motor vehicle 

accident occurring on April 5, 2003. An arbitration 

hearing[1] was scheduled for November 23, 2005. At the 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellee’s complaint sought damages “in an amount not in excess of Fifty 

Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interests and costs.” R.R. at 

19a. Thus, this was a compulsory arbitration pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 

7361(a). The statute provides as follows:
J-A31031-16

- 2 -

arbitration hearing, [Appellant] was not present, and the 

panel entered an award “in favor of Defendant Daimlier 

Chrysler Corporation by stipulation and against [Appellant] 

in the amount of $35,000.00.”[2]

On October 11, 2012, [Appellee] filed a petition to 

Conform and Mold Arbitration Award. On November 7, 

2012, the [c]ourt entered an Order molding, conforming, 

 

(a) General rule.─Except as provided in subsection (b), 

when prescribed by general rule or rule of court such civil 

matters or issues therein as shall be specified by rule shall 

first be submitted to and heard by a board of three 

members of the bar of the court.

(b) Limitations.─No matter shall be referred under 

subsection (a):

(1) which involves title to real property; or 

(2) where the amount in controversy, exclusive of 

interest and costs, exceeds $50,000.

42 Pa.C.S. § 7361(a), (b). For the parties’ convenience, we refer to the 

reproduced record where applicable.

2

In the instant case, the award of the arbitrators and notice pursuant to 

Pa.R.C.P. 1307 was entered on the docket on November 23, 2005. See R.R. 

at 4a. In Stivers Temp. Pers., Inc. v. Brown, 789 A.2d 292 (Pa. Super. 

2001), this Court noted:

Upon entry of the compulsory arbitration award on the 

docket and appropriate notice, the award took the force 

and effect of a final judgment. This procedure differs 

substantially from statutory or common law arbitration, 

which provides that a party must petition the trial court to 

confirm an award thirty days or more following the date of 

the award. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7313, 7342(b). As this 

case involves a compulsory arbitration award, neither 

party was required to praecipe the prothonotary to enter 

judgment on the award. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7361(d).

Id. at 294.
J-A31031-16

- 3 -

and correcting the Arbitration Award to read: “We find in 

favor of [Appellee] and against [Appellant] in the amount 

of $35,000.00. We find in favor of Defendant Daimler 

Chrysler by stipulation on [Appellee’s] cause of action.” 

On August 27, 2015, [Appellee] filed a Praecipe for 

Judgment directing the Prothonotary to enter judgment 

and assess damages on the Arbitration Award as 

“$35,000.00 with interest from November 23, 2005.”

On January 18, 2016, [Appellant] filed a Petition to 

Strike Judgment, to which [Appellee] filed an opposition on 

February 8, 2016. On March 3, 2016, this [c]ourt denied 

the Petition. On March 14, 2016, [Appellant] filed a Motion 

for Reconsideration, which this [c]ourt denied on March 16, 

2016. On April 1, 2016, [Appellant] filed a Notice of 

Appeal to the Superior Court.[3]

Trial Ct. Op., 6/13/16, at 1-2.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Whether the trial 

court erred when it refused to consider the numerous errors demonstrated in 

the record of the case resulting in a void or voidable judgment when it held 

that the only remedy from an arbitration award was an appeal de novo?” 

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

As a prefatory matter, we consider whether the trial court had 

jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s petition to strike. In Stivers, this court 

addressed the issue of “whether the trial court had jurisdiction to review [the 

a]ppellant's petition to vacate the arbitration award filed 58 days after the 

prothonotary entered the arbitration award on the docket and sent the

required notice.” Stivers, 789 A.2d at 295. This Court opined: 

 

3 Appellant was not ordered to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors 

complained of on appeal.
J-A31031-16

- 4 -

In compulsory arbitration, once an award is issued, it is 

sent to the prothonotary for entry on the docket and 

publication to the parties. Pa.R.C.P. 1306; 1307; 1308(a); 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7361(d) (stating “In the absence of appeal 

the judgment entered on the award of the arbitrators shall 

be enforced as any other judgment of the court.”). Here, 

the arbitrators forwarded the award to the prothonotary on 

November 20, 2000, for entry on the docket, and the 

prothonotary notified the parties of the award on the same 

day. See Pa R.C.P. 1307.

Once entered, a compulsory arbitration award may only 

be challenged by a timely appeal to the Court of Common 

Pleas for a trial de novo. Pa.R.C.P. 1308(a); 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 7361(d). Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1308(a) 

provides in pertinent part:

(a) An appeal from an [arbitration] award shall be 

taken by

(1) filing a notice of appeal in the form provided by 

Rule 1313 with the prothonotary of the court in 

which the action is pending not later than thirty days 

after the day on which the prothonotary makes the 

notation on the docket that notice of the entry of the 

arbitration award has been provided as required by 

rule 1307(a)(3)

Pa.R.C.P. 1308(a). This Court has stated:

The procedure for taking an appeal from a 

compulsory arbitration award is clear. A party to a 

compulsory arbitration may take an appeal from the 

award by seeking a trial de novo in the Court of 

Common Pleas. 42 Pa.[C.S.] § 7361(d). Rule of 

Civil Procedure 1308(a) provides that an appeal 

from an arbitration award must be taken “not 

later than thirty days after the entry of the 

award on the docket. . . .” The Explanatory Note 

to Pa.R.C.P. 1307 states:

These Rules contemplate that the board will 

disperse after rendering the award, not to 

reconvene and not to hear any motions or 
J-A31031-16

- 5 -

applications to amend modify or change the 

award. If any party is dissatisfied with any 

aspect of the award, the sole remedy is an 

appeal for a trial de novo. (emphasis added)

The rules provide only one exception to this 

procedure. Subsection (d) of Rule 1307 provides 

that the court of common pleas may mold an award 

where the record discloses obvious errors in either 

the mathematics or language of the award. The 

court’s power to mold is specifically limited to 

correction of such patent errors and is the same 

as the power of a trial court to mold a jury verdict. 

Pa.R.C.P. 1307(d). The rule is aimed at the 

corrections of formal errors that do not go to 

the substance and merits of the award. 

Lough [v. Spring, 556 A.2d 441, 442-43 (Pa. Super. 

1989)], (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). 

Additionally,

Timeliness of an appeal, whether it is an appeal to 

an appellate court or a de novo appeal in common 

pleas court, is a jurisdictional question. Where a 

statute fixes the time within which an appeal may be 

taken, the time may not be extended as a matter of 

indulgence or grace.

Lee v. Guerin, 735 A.2d 1280, 1281 (Pa. Super. 1999) [ 

]. 

 * * *

[The a]ppellant did not file an appeal for a trial de novo

within the thirty-day appeal period prescribed by Pa.R.C.P. 

1308(a). See Lee, supra; Pa.R.C.P. 1308(a). 

Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, ab initio, 

to consider Appellant’s petition to vacate the compulsory 

arbitration award. 

Stivers, 789 A.2d at 295–97 (some emphases added and some citations 

omitted).
J-A31031-16

- 6 -

In the case sub judice, the trial court opined: “In the instant matter, 

regardless of the potential merits of [Appellant’s] Petition to Strike 

Judgment, the sole procedure for challenging an Arbitration Award is by an 

appeal for a trial de novo and, as such, this [c]ourt properly denied the 

Petition to Strike Judgment.” Trial Ct. Op. at 2-3. We agree no relief is due.

On November 23, 2005, the arbitrators’ award was entered on the 

docket, and notice was given pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1307. See id. at 294. 

Appellant did not perfect an appeal for a trial de novo pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 

1308(a); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 7361(d). Appellant’s filing of the petition to 

strike the judgment and underlying award of the arbitrators on January 18, 

2016, did not constitute compliance with the procedures applicable to the 

filing of an appeal from an arbitration award. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 7361(d); 

Pa.R.C.P. 1308(a); Stivers, 789 A.2d at 295-97. Therefore, the trial court 

lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition to strike the award. See id. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.4

Order affirmed.

 

4 We note that we can affirm the trial court for any reason. In re Estate of 

Cochran, 738 A.2d 1029, 1032 (Pa . Super. 1999).
J-A31031-16

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/29/2016