IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stillwater Lakes Civic Association :

and Stillwater Lakes Sewer :

Corporation :

:

v. : No. 745 C.D. 2022

:

Yasmin Escarfullery, :

Appellant : Submitted: May 26, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE CEISLER FILED: August 29, 2023

Currently before us is Appellant Yasmin Escarfullery’s (Escarfullery) appeal, 

through which she challenges the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County’s

(Common Pleas) May 18, 2022 order that cancelled a previously scheduled statutory 

arbitration hearing, as well as a default judgment that was subsequently entered 

against her via praecipe on June 17, 2022. After thorough consideration, we quash 

Escarfullery’s appeal, due to our lack of jurisdiction over this matter.

I. Background

On May 18, 2018, Appellees Stillwater Lakes Civic Association and 

Stillwater Lakes Sewer Corporation (Civic Association and Sewer Corporation, 

individually, and Stillwater, collectively) filed a seven-count Complaint against 

Escarfullery in Common Pleas. Therein, Stillwater alleged that Escarfullery owned 

a property located in the Civic Association’s subdivision and had failed to pay “dues, 

assessments, sewer charges and other various charges in the [aggregate] amount of 
2

Seventeen Thousand Eighty-Three Dollars and Seventy-Eight Cents ($17,083.78)” 

that had been assessed against her property by the Civic Association and the Sewer 

Corporation. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 1a-2a. Accordingly, Stillwater sought 

monetary damages in that amount and “all future dues, assessments, and sewer 

charges incurred through the time of trial,” as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and 

interest. Id. at 4a-12a. Thereafter on December 2, 2021, Stillwater filed a Praecipe 

for Arbitration. An arbitration hearing was then scheduled for January 11, 2022, but 

was postponed multiple times by Common Pleas over the following months, due to 

successive continuance requests made by the parties. See id. at 76a-103a.1

Eventually, the hearing was rescheduled for May 20, 2022. Id. at 97a. 

Escarfullery was unable to attend the hearing, but the parties nevertheless agreed to 

proceed with the hearing on that date, with the understanding that the arbitration 

panel would “enter a default award which could be appealed de novo [to Common 

Pleas] for trial.” Id. at 128a; see id. at 116a (May 16, 2022 letter, in which 

Escarfullery’s counsel advised Stillwater’s counsel that “my client is unable to 

attend [the hearing and], therefore[,] we will take the default judgment in this 

matter”). Common Pleas then issued an order on May 18, 2022, through which it 

cancelled the arbitration hearing and directed Stillwater to file for default judgment 

against Escarfullery within 30 days. Id. at 118a. 

Escarfullery responded by filing a Motion for Reconsideration on June 10, 

2022, in which she requested that Common Pleas vacate its May 18, 2022 order, 

because she had “agreed to take a default judgment for the arbitration only—not the

1 As reflected by the Reproduced Record, there were three continuance requests. The first 

two were filed by Appellees, who asked for the continuances because of ongoing settlement 

negotiations. The third one was filed by Appellant, who asked for the continuance because her 

attorney had to attend to a personal matter. All three of these continuance requests were filed with 

the consent of the opposing party or parties. See R.R. at 76a-103a.
3

[entire] case.” Id. at 104a-05a. This Motion for Reconsideration was not transmitted 

to Common Pleas in a timely manner, due to an unexplained administrative 

breakdown in Common Pleas’ Office of the Prothonotary, and was never adjudicated 

by the lower court. Id. at 128a.2 On June 17, 2022, Stillwater filed a Praecipe for 

Default Judgment and Assessment of Damages in Common Pleas, whereupon 

Common Pleas’ prothonotary entered judgment against Escarfullery that same day 

in the amount of $43,932.64. Id. at 111a-13a, 128a. This appeal to our Court 

followed shortly thereafter.

II. Discussion

Under normal circumstances, we would now consider the substantive merits 

of Escarfullery’s appellate arguments. However, we cannot do so in this instance 

because we lack jurisdiction over this matter.3 With regard to Common Pleas’ May 

18, 2022 order, it was neither final, collateral in nature, nor interlocutory and 

appealable as of right. See Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)(1), 313, 341. Thus, we cannot currently 

rule upon the merits of that order. Similarly, Stillwater’s default judgment is not 

reviewable at this juncture. As we have explained in the past:

Default judgments generally are governed by 

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 237.1-237.6, 1037, 

Pa. [R.Civ.P.] 237.1-237.6, 1037, and are granted 

ministerially by prothonotaries and without judicial 

involvement. Gotwalt v. Dellinger, . . . 577 A.2d 623, 625 

([Pa. Super.] 1990).

2 This was apparently due to Common Pleas’ belief that it lacked jurisdiction to do so when 

it was finally made aware of the Motion’s existence, due to the fact that Appellant had already 

filed the instant appeal. See R.R. at 128a-29a.

3 Though none of the parties have raised jurisdictional concerns, it is well settled that 

“questions of jurisdiction can never be waived, and may be raised at any time by the parties or sua 

sponte by an appellate court.” Pennhurst Med. Grp., P.C. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 796 A.2d 423, 

425 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
4

Such judgments are not judicial orders and are not subject 

to an immediate appeal after their entry; rather, to obtain 

relief, the party against whom the judgment was entered 

may either file a petition to strike the default judgment or 

file a petition to open the default judgment. Mother’s 

Restaurant, Inc. v. Krystkiewicz, 861 A.2d 327, 336 (Pa. 

Super. 2004). Once a court of common pleas rules on one 

of these petitions, then the aggrieved party has a right to 

an appeal to higher court pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 311(a)(1), Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)(1) 

(granting an [interlocutory] appeal as of right from any 

“order refusing to open, vacate or strike off a judgment”).

Off. of Att’y Gen., Bureau of Consumer Prot. v. Lubisky, 88 A.3d 328, 333 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2014) (emphasis in original). Here, the default judgment that was entered 

in this matter exists only as an administrative docket entry in response to Stillwater’s 

praecipe and has yet to be the subject of an order that falls within the scope of 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(a)(1). As such, we lack jurisdiction 

at this point in time to consider the propriety of either the May 18, 2022 order or the 

subsequently entered default judgment.

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, we quash Escarfullery’s appeal.

4

____________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

4 Our quashal of Escarfullery’s appeal does not affect Common Pleas’ authority to 

adjudicate Escarfullery’s still-outstanding Motion for Reconsideration, or Escarfullery’s ability to 

file a petition to open or strike the default judgment.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stillwater Lakes Civic Association :

and Stillwater Lakes Sewer :

Corporation :

:

v. : No. 745 C.D. 2022

:

Yasmin Escarfullery, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that 

Appellant Yasmin Escarfullery’s appeal is QUASHED, due to lack of jurisdiction.

____________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge