J-S13033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 

INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

STEVE FITZGERALD, LLP 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2481 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered September 6, 2022

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

No(s): CV-2021-004908

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 13, 2023

Appellant Steve Fitzgerald, LLP purports to appeal from the September 

6, 2022, order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

granting partial summary judgment in favor of Fidelity National Title Insurance 

Company (“Fidelity”). After a careful review, we quash this appeal.

The relevant facts and procedural history have been set forth, in part, 

by the trial court as follows:

This case involves a title insurance policy between Appellant 

and [Fidelity]. On June 3, 2021, Fidelity commenced the instant 

action by filing a Complaint in which they sought declaratory 

judgment and reformation of the title policy against Appellant

[and its successors]. [With court permission], [a]n Amended 

Complaint was filed on May 18, 2022, in which Fidelity added a 

count for declaratory judgment against [Appellant] and its 

successors declaring the title insurance policy was cancelled.

1

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13033-23

- 2 -

Appellant filed his Answer to the Amended Complaint on June 8, 

2022.

1 Evidence was offered by Fidelity that the property at issue was sold 

by Deed dated May 18, 2021, and recorded July 12, 2021.

[Fidelity] filed a motion for summary judgment[.] Appellant 

filed a response[,] and Fidelity filed a reply brief[.] Th[e] [trial] 

court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment on July 

12, 2022. 

Evidence presented to [the trial] court established that by 

Deed dated February 4, 2005, Helen Pierson conveyed real 

property located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, to her son, 

Daniel A. Pierson, Jr. The legal description of the Deed references 

two folio numbers, 42-00-02246-00, and 42-00-00378-00, and 

includes the following metes and bounds description:

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the 

buildings and improvements thereon erected, 

SITUATE in the Township of Springfield, County of 

Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection 

of the South side of Baltimore Avenue with the East 

side of Grove Avenue; thence extending Eastward, 

along the said South side of Baltimore Avenue, One 

hundred and sixty-three one-hundredths feet to a 

point: THENCE extending Southward Two hundred 

and eleven and twenty-five one-hundredths feet to a 

point; THENCE extending Westward One hundred feet 

to a point of the East side of Grove Avenue; THENCE 

extending Northward, along the said East side of 

Grove Avenue, Two hundred feet to the first 

mentioned point, corner and place of beginning.

See Amended Complaint, Exhibit 1.

The evidence established that Folio No. 42-00-00378-00 is 

associated with a commercial property, a gas station, located at 

217 Baltimore Pike, Springfield, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. 

Folio No. 42-00-02246-00 is associated with a residence located 

at 8** Grove Avenue, Springfield, Delaware County, 

Pennsylvania.

When Daniel A. Pierson, Jr. failed to pay taxes on the 

property located at Folio No. 42-00-00378-00, the gas station, the 

Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau exposed the property to an 
J-S13033-23

- 3 -

Upset Tax Sale. The advertisements for the tax sale referenced 

only Folio No. 42-00-00378-00, which is associated with the gas 

station located at 217 Baltimore Pike.

On or about September 15, 2016, Appellant was the 

successful bidder at the Upset Tax Sale for the gas station located 

at 217 Baltimore Pike with tax Folio No. 42-00-00378-00. An 

Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau Deed was recorded on July 12, 2017, 

at Deed Book 6027 at page 2397 in favor of Appellant. The Deed 

references only 217 Baltimore Pike and describes the property 

subject thereto as:

ALL THAT CERTAIN tract, place or parcel of SEATED 

land containing,

217 Baltimore Pike

STATION 2 BAYS 3 PUMPS

100 X 106

SEE EXHIBIT “A”

See Amended Complaint, Exhibit 3.

It is important to emphasize that the Tax Claim Bureau Deed 

set forth that the property being purchased was 217 Baltimore 

Pike and Folio No. 42-00-00378-00. Put simply, Appellant 

purchased one tract, piece, or parcel of land contained therein, a 

gas station. 

In 2018, Appellant filed a quiet title action in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Delaware County against Daniel A. Pierson, Jr. 

and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., which was docketed at CV-2018-

007517. Appellant was successful in that action, and an Order 

was entered on January 23, 2019, quieting title to the premises 

to Appellant, the purchaser.2

2 Evidence was also submitted that on or about December 27, 2019, 

Daniel A. Pierson, Jr. filed a petition seeking to set aside the Upset Tax 

Sale referenced above at Docket No. CV-2019-010770. Pierson claimed 

that although he failed to pay taxes for the property located at 217 

Baltimore Pike, the taxes for 8** Grove Avenue were current and that 

the property should not have been included in the Tax Upset Sale. 

[Appellant] intervened in that action. Pierson’s petition was ultimately 

denied with prejudice on or about October 1, 2020.

Thereafter, Appellant sought title insurance for his property 

from Fidelity. Prior to the issuance of the title insurance, Appellant 

obtained and provided Fidelity with an appraisal for 217 Baltimore 

Pike dated August 9, 2019. The appraisal included a valuation 

with commercial real estate, namely a 1,200 square foot building 

and adjoining 100 X 106 lot. Thereafter, based upon these 
J-S13033-23

- 4 -

representations, Fidelity issued a $250,000.00 Owner’s Policy of 

Title Insurance (hereinafter “Title Policy”) insuring the commercial 

property located at 217 Baltimore Pike and naming [Appellant] as 

the insured. At the time the Title Policy was issued, [Appellant] 

executed a settlement and paid the taxes owed for 217 Baltimore 

Pike associated with Folio No. 42-00-00378-00. [Appellant] also 

executed an affidavit setting forth that there are no outstanding 

mortgages on the property located at 217 Baltimore Pike.

After some time, Appellant, through counsel, sent a letter 

to Fidelity’s Senior Claims Counsel, dated October 6, 2020, which 

asserted that “the entirety of my client’s property is now burdened 

with a mortgage in the principal amount of $179,000.00, an 

eventuality that your firm had insured against. Kindly accept this 

correspondence as a formal request to diligently address my 

client’s claim under the above-referenced policy.” Fidelity then 

commenced the instant action seeking declaratory relief, among 

other prayers for relief in [its] Complaint, on June 3, 2021, [as 

amended on May 18, 2022.]

Trial Court Opinion, filed 1/11/23, at 1-4 (some citations to record and 

footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original).

In the Amended Complaint, Fidelity presented three Counts with each 

against “[Appellant] and its Successors.” Fidelity’s Amended Complaint, filed 

5/18/22, at 13, 15, 18. Specifically, in Count 1, Declaratory Judgment, 

Fidelity sought a judgment against Appellant and its successors:

a. Declaring the Title Policy only insured the gas station located 

at 217 Baltimore Pike, Springfield, Pennsylvania and does not 

insure the residence located at 8** Grove Avenue, Springfield, 

Pennsylvania; and

b. Declaring that even if the Title Policy insures the residence 

located at 8** Grove Avenue, Springfield, Pennsylvania, and 

even if the SunTrust Mortgage encumbers the property insured 

under the Title Policy, Fidelity is not obligated under the Title 

Policy to remove the SunTrust Mortgage as an encumbrance 

against the insured property because [Appellant] represented 

in the Affidavit that there are no outstanding mortgages on the 

insured property; and
J-S13033-23

- 5 -

c. Granting such other and further relief as [the trial] court deems 

appropriate including, but not limited to, that the relief under 

Count 1 applies to [Appellant’s] successors.

Id. at 14-15.

In Count 2, Reformation of Title Policy, Fidelity sought a judgment 

against Appellant and its successors:

a. Reforming the Title Policy to confirm that it insures the gas 

station commonly known as 217 Baltimore Pike, Springfield, 

Pennsylvania, but not the residence commonly known as 8** 

Grove Avenue, Springfield, Pennsylvania; 

b. Granting such other and further relief as [the trial] court deems 

appropriate including, but not limited to, that the relief under 

Count II applies to [Appellant’s] successors.

Id. at 18.

In Count 3, Declaratory Judgment, Fidelity sought a judgment against 

Appellant and its successors:

a. Declaring the Title Policy is cancelled; and

b. Granting such other and further relief as [the trial] court deems 

appropriate including, but not limited to, that the relief under 

Count III applies to [Appellant’s] successors.

Id. at 19. 

Following the hearing on Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment, the 

trial court entered an order on September 2, 2022, which provides as follows

in its entirety:

AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 2022, upon 

consideration of [Fidelity’s] Motion for Summary Judgment, 

[Appellant’s] response thereto, and following a hearing held 

before [the trial] court, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED as 

follows:
J-S13033-23

- 6 -

Judgment is GRANTED in favor of [Fidelity] and against

[Appellant] on Count I, declaratory judgment, of [Fidelity’s] 

Complaint for Declaratory Relief, and on Count II, reformation of 

title policy, of [Appellant’s] Complaint for Declaratory Relief. 

[Appellant’s] title insurance policy only insures the gas station 

located at 217 Baltimore Pike, Springfield, Pennsylvania, and does

not insure the residence located at 8** Grove Avenue, Springfield, 

Pennsylvania, at issue in this case herein. 

Trial Court Order, filed 9/6/22 (bold omitted).

On September 26, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. The trial 

court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, Appellant 

timely complied, and the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on January 

11, 2023.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues in his “Statement of 

Questions Presented” (verbatim):

I. Did the Appellant seek title insurance for a signal (sic) 

integrated tax parcel?

II. Does the Delaware County Tax Map identify a single parcel 

with a single identifier number with a postal address at 217 

Baltimore Pike?

III. Does the Delaware County Tax Map depict two (2) 

structures on a signal (sic) tax parcel?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (suggested answers omitted).

Preliminarily, we must address whether the instant appeal is properly 

before us. It is well-settled that “the appealability of an order directly 

implicates the jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order.” Knopick 

v. Boyle, 189 A.3d 432, 436 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted). 

“Accordingly, this Court has the power to inquire at any time, sua sponte, 
J-S13033-23

- 7 -

whether an order is appealable.” Id. (citations omitted). Such an issue raises 

a question of law; accordingly, our standard of review is de novo, and our 

scope of review is plenary. See Com., Dept. of Environmental Protection 

v. Cromwell Tp., Huntingdon County, 613 Pa. 1, 32 A.3d 639, 646 (2011).

As a general rule, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals 

taken from a final order.1 In re Bridgeport Fire Litigation, 51 A.3d 224, 

229 (Pa.Super. 2012). A final order is one that disposes of all the parties and 

all the claims; or is entered as a final order pursuant to the trial court’s 

determination under Pa.R.A.P. 341(c). See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1), (3), (c). 

In the case sub judice, Fidelity raised three claims in its Amended 

Complaint against Appellant and its successors; however, the trial court 

granted summary judgment as to only two of the claims (Count 1 and Count 

2). The trial court did not, and has not yet, ruled on Count 3. Accordingly, 

the trial court has not disposed of all parties or all claims. See id. Moreover, 

no party requested the trial court’s September 2, 2022, order be entered as a 

final order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(c).

This does not end our inquiry, however, since an appeal may also be 

taken from “an order that is made final or appealable by statute or general 

rule, even though the order does not dispose of all claims and of all parties.” 

____________________________________________

1 Without elaboration, Appellant avers this Court has jurisdiction on the basis 

the trial court’s September 6, 2022, order is a final order. See Appellant’s 

Brief at 1. 
J-S13033-23

- 8 -

Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(8). Here, in Counts 1 and 3 of its Amended Complaint, 

Fidelity requested declaratory judgment regarding its obligations under the 

Title Policy. 

Section 7532 of the Declaratory Judgments Act (“the Act”) provides, in 

relevant part:

Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have 

power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether 

or not further relief is or could be claimed....The declaration may 

be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and such 

declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or 

decree.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7532.

Accordingly, our Supreme Court, as well as this Court, has recognized 

that certain interlocutory orders involving declaratory judgment claims may 

be appealable as of right. See Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association

Ins. Co. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., 647 Pa. 85, 188 A.3d 396, 399 (2018)

(per curiam); Schmitt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 245 

A.3d 678, 681 (Pa.Super. 2021). However, appealing an interlocutory order 

under the Act is not an “automatic” right. Schmitt, 245 A.3d at 684-85.

Rather, within the context of declaratory judgment actions, our 

Supreme Court has “provided a rather straightforward two-part test for 

appellate courts to apply when considering whether an order declaring the 

rights of parties is final and appealable[.]” Pennsylvania Manufacturers’

Association Ins. Co., supra, 188 A.3d at 399. See Schmitt, supra.

Specifically, we must determine:
J-S13033-23

- 9 -

(1) what is the effect of the lower court’s decision on the scope of 

the litigation; and (2) what practical effect does the court’s 

decision have on the ultimate outcome of the case....If the order 

in question merely narrows the scope of the litigation and does 

not resolve the entirety of the parties’ eligibility for declaratory 

relief, then the order is interlocutory and not immediately 

appealable.

Schmitt, 245 A.3d at 685 (quoting Pennsylvania Manufacturers’

Association Ins. Co., supra, 188 A.3d at 399-400). See Enterprise Bank 

v. Ridgeway, No. 364 WDA 2022, 2023 WL 107606 (Pa.Super. filed 1/5/23) 

(unpublished memorandum).2

Here, pertaining to Count 1 of the Amended Complaint, the September 

2, 2022, order declared the Title Policy insures only the gas station located at 

217 Baltimore Pike, and pertaining to Count 2 of the Amended Complaint, the 

September 2, 2022, order reformed the Title Policy to confirm it insures only 

the gas station located at 217 Baltimore Pike. However, pertaining to Count 

3 of the Amended Complaint, the September 2, 2022, order did not declare 

whether the Title Policy should be cancelled in its entirety. 

Accordingly, we conclude the trial court’s September 2, 2022, order 

merely narrowed the scope of the litigation and did not resolve the entirety of 

Fidelity’s eligibility for declaratory relief against Appellant and its successors. 

____________________________________________

2 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unpublished non-precedential decisions of the 

Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive 

value).
J-S13033-23

- 10 -

Thus, the order is interlocutory and not immediately appealable under 

Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(8) or the Act.

Under these circumstances, and “in light of our well-established policy 

of avoiding piecemeal litigation,” Pennsylvania Manufacturers’

Association Ins. Co, 188 A.3d at 400, we quash the instant appeal.3 

Appeal Quashed.

Judge Murray joins the memorandum.

Judge Nichols concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/13/2023

____________________________________________

3 We note that an appeal may also be taken from an interlocutory order by 

permission or from a collateral order. Situs Properties, Inc. v. Jenkins

Court Realty Co., LP, 259 A.3d 993, 996-97 (Pa.Super. 2021). Appellant 

neither sought permission to appeal from the interlocutory order nor 

developed any argument that the appeal is from a collateral order.