J-S60027-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DAVID A. VOSBURG, STUART A. 

VOSBURG, RICHARD K. VOSBURG, 

JILL L. VOSBURG, MARK S. 

VOSBURG, MATTHEW W. VOSBURG, 

MARSHALL W. VOSBURG, AND 

KATHERINE M. VOSBURG 

Appellants

v.

ESTATE OF JACOB BREYMEIER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 752 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered April 6, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s): 

13126-2006

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MARCH 18, 2019

Appellant Richard K. Vosburg, acting pro se as a purported

representative of Appellants David A. Vosburg, Stuart A. Vosburg, Jill L. 

Vosburg, Mark S. Vosburg, Matthew W. Vosburg, Marshall W. Vosburg, and 

Katherine M. Vosburg, appeals from the order entered April 6, 2018, which 

granted post-trial motions filed by Appellee Edward Slaska as representative 

of the Estate of Jacob Breymeier and amended the judgment entered on 

November 2, 2017. Appellant asserts that the trial court violated his right to 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60027-18

- 2 -

a fair trial. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Appellant has waived 

all issues for appeal, and we affirm.

As the parties are well aware of the history to this matter, we briefly 

recite the following relevant background. Two groups, the “Albert M. Vosburg, 

Jr. heirs”1 and the “Stuart W. Vosburg heirs,”

2 owned a portion of property 

(the property) in Luzerne County. In 2006, the two groups began to pursue

a quiet title action regarding the property. The trial court entered a default 

judgment to quiet title in 2007. In 2016, Appellee filed a petition to strike the

order to quiet title, asserting that he owned half of the property and had not 

been notified of the quiet title action prior to the default judgment being 

entered. 

The trial court issued an order on March 16, 2016, striking the default 

judgment to quiet title. On March 31, 2016, Appellee filed an answer with 

new matter. Appellee asserted that the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs had initiated 

the quiet title action without performing a diligent search of the chain of title, 

which would have shown that Appellee owned half of the property through the 

Estate of Jacob Breymeier. Appellee additionally sought attorney’s fees.

____________________________________________

1 This group of heirs includes Albert M. Vosburg, III and Dawn Vosburg 

Anderson.

2 This group of heirs includes Appellant, Stuart A. Vosburg, David A. Vosburg, 

Jill L. Vosburg, Mark S. Vosburg, Matthew W. Vosburg, Marshall W. Vosburg, 

and Katherine M. Vosburg. The Stuart W. Vosburg heirs were initially 

represented by counsel, who filed a petition to withdraw after being dismissed 

as counsel in July 2016. The trial court granted the withdrawal petition on 

August 22, 2016.
J-S60027-18

- 3 -

Appellee also filed a discontinuance in the action, but before the trial court 

ruled on it, he filed a petition to strike the discontinuance so he could file an 

amended answer with new matter including a counterclaim. 

The trial court granted the petition to strike the discontinuance and 

permitted Appellee to file an amended answer. Appellee filed an amended 

answer, including new matter with a counterclaim, in which he alleged that he 

was owed a portion of monies received from timbering the property. On March 

30, 2017, the Albert M. Vosburg, Jr. heirs filed a cross-claim against the Stuart 

W. Vosburg heirs regarding allegedly withheld timbering money. The court 

dismissed the Albert M. Vosburg, Jr. heirs’ cross-claim on September 8, 2017. 

A non-jury trial took place on September 11, 2017. Testimony 

established that the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs knew that Appellee had an 

interest in the subject property through the Estate of Jacob Breymeier. The 

testimony also showed that the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs failed to conduct a 

diligent search of the chain of title of the property and instituted the quiet title 

action to extinguish Appellee’s rights to half of the property.

The trial court found that Appellee owned half of the property, the Stuart

W. Vosburg heirs owned one-quarter of the property, and the Albert M. 

Vosburg, Jr. heirs owned one-quarter of the property. The court also found 

that the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs did not disburse any of the $38,000.00

received from timbering activities to the other owners. On November 2, 2017, 

the court entered a judgment in favor of Appellee of $19,125.00, plus interest, 

for timbering monies and $10,404.00 for attorney fees. The court also entered 
J-S60027-18

- 4 -

a judgment in favor of the Albert M. Vosburg, Jr. heirs of $9,500.00, plus 

costs, for timbering monies.

On November 9, 2017, Appellee filed timely post-trial motions seeking 

additional interest and legal, expert, and title search fees. On November 29, 

2017, Appellant, on behalf of the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs, filed a pro se notice 

of appeal with this Court. This Court quashed the appeal on March 8, 2018. 

The trial court held a hearing on Appellee’s post-trial motions on April 4, 2018. 

The court entered an order on April 5, 2018, which amended the November 

2, 2017 judgment in favor of Appellee and increased it by $10,676.90. 

Appellant filed a second pro se notice of appeal with this Court on May 

4, 2018. Appellant filed a timely court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement 

on May 29, 2018. The trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. What has the [trial] court done with Appellant’s 145 pages of 

prepared material evidence in this case that the court 

specifically directed, during trial, the Appellant to produce 

within thirty (30) days from the date of trial?

2. Why did the trial court direct the Appellant to submit his 

evidence in written fashion, after trial, instead of granting 

Appellant . . . his request, at trial, to present this evidence 

through questioning of the two (2) attorneys accused of fraud 

and collusion by Appellant?

3. As only the [trial] court can answer these questions that have 

been properly raised in procedurally filed Statement of Errors, 

why has the court not done so? And why, ten (10) months 

after trial, with these serious questions remaining unanswered, 

are the 145 pages of evidence produced by Appellant . . . still 

buried by the [trial] court outside the official file of the Clerk of 

Courts?
J-S60027-18

- 5 -

Appellant’s Brief at 2-3.

Before we analyze Appellant’s issues, we must consider whether 

Appellant preserved them for appeal. Under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c), 

[p]ost-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after . . . the 

filing of the decision in the case of a trial without jury. If a party 

has filed a timely post-trial motion, any other party may file a 

post-trial motion within ten days after the filing of the first posttrial motion.

Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c) (emphasis added). Further, 

[u]nder Rule 227.1, a party must file post-trial motions at the 

conclusion of a trial in any type of action in order to preserve 

claims that the party wishes to raise on appeal. In other words, a 

trial court’s order at the conclusion of a trial, whether the action 

is one at law or in equity, simply cannot become final for purposes 

of filing an appeal until the court decides any timely post-trial 

motions. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(a).

Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491, 496 (Pa. 2002) (emphasis in original). 

“Grounds not specified by a party in post-trial motions pursuant to Rule 227.1 

shall be deemed waived on appellate review.” Id. at 494 (citations omitted).

Here, Appellee filed timely post-trial motions on November 9, 2017. 

Under Rule 227.1(c), Appellant would have had until ten days after Appellee 

filed post-trial motions to file his own timely post-trial motions. See Pa.R.C.P. 

227.1(c). However, Appellant filed no post-trial motions. Accordingly, all of 

Appellant’s issues raised on appeal have been waived. See Chalkey, 805 

A.2d at 494.

Order affirmed.
J-S60027-18

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/18/2019