J-S54032-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CINTAS CORPORATION

v.

SUNCO ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A 

FLYING J. BREEZEWOOD, BEDFORD 

COUNTY OIL CO., INC., AND 

BREEZEWOOD VENTURE, L.L.C.

APPEAL OF: BEDFORD COUNTY OIL 

CO., INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 298 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment January 24, 2018

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

1277 of 2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 2, 2018

Sunco Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Flying J. Breezewood (Sunco), Bedford 

County Oil Co., Inc. (Bedford Oil), and Breezewood Venture, L.L.C. (BVL) 

(collectively Appellants) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Cintas 

Corporation (Cintas) on January 24, 2018. Because Appellants never filed 

post-trial motions pursuant to Rule 227.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil 

Procedure, we affirm.1

____________________________________________

1

 Each Appellant makes the same arguments regarding Rule 227.1. 

Therefore, our analysis and disposition is the same at docket numbers 297, 

298, and 299 WDA 2018.
J-S54032-18

- 2 -

A detailed recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary. The 

procedural history, however, is critical to our disposition. On November 18, 

2015, Cintas filed a complaint against Appellants in which it alleged claims of 

breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. These claims 

stemmed from Appellants’ nonpayment on service contracts they entered into 

with Cintas. Pursuant to these contracts, Cintas was to provide Appellants 

with uniforms and cleaning products for Appellants’ gas and service stations. 

On August 10 and 11, 2017, the trial court held a nonjury trial. On October 2 

and 4, 2017, Cintas and Appellants, respectively, submitted briefs in support 

of their positions.

On January 24, 2018, the trial court issued a memorandum opinion and 

order in which explained its verdict and entered judgment in favor of Cintas 

and against Appellants. The trial court summarized the arguments of the 

parties and its decision as follows:

The present matter is a breach of contract/unjust enrichment 

action in which Plaintiff [(Cintas)] seeks enforcement of a 

liquidated damages clause to two service contracts it claims 

[were] breached by Defendants [(Sunco, Bedford Oil, and BVL)]. 

Defendants do not contest that the contract was breached without 

cause. Rather, Defendants argue that the liquidated damages 

clause is unenforceable. In addition, BVL contends that it is not a 

contracting party and therefore not liable. After careful review of 

the evidence and consideration of the applicable law, we find that 

BVL was indeed a party to the . . . contract[s], [and] that the 

liquidated damages [clause] is enforceable[.]

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1/24/18, at 1.
J-S54032-18

- 3 -

Appellants did not file any post-trial motions. Instead, on February 23, 

2018, Appellants filed timely notices of appeal from the trial court’s entry of 

judgment. Both the trial court and Appellants have complied with Rule 1925 

of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

On March 21, 2018, the Superior Court issued an order directing 

Appellants to show cause as to why their appeals should not be dismissed for 

failing to file post-sentence motions pursuant to Rule 227.1 of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. On April 4, 2018, Appellants filed 

responses to the rule to show cause. The following day, Cintas filed an answer 

to Appellants’ responses. On April 16, 2018, this Court entered an order 

discharging the rule to show cause and advising counsel that the panel 

assigned to the case may revisit the issue relating to Rule 227.1. The Order 

specifically stated:

This ruling, however, is not a final determination as to the 

propriety of the appeal or Appellant’s preservation of issues. 

Counsel are advised that these issues may be revisited by the 

panel assigned to the case.

Order, 4/16/18.

Prior to addressing any of the issues Appellants have raised on appeal, 

we must first address the issue relating to Rule 227.1, because it impacts 

whether Appellants have preserved any issues for appellate review. Rule 

227.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that “[p]ost-trial 

motions shall be filed within ten days after . . . the filing of the decision in the 

case of a trial without jury.” Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c)(2). Pennsylvania Rule of 
J-S54032-18

- 4 -

Appellate Procedure 302(a) provides that “[i]ssues not raised in the lower 

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 

302(a). With respect to Rule 227.1, our Supreme Court has explained, 

“[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.” Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491, 496 (Pa. 2002). “If 

an issue has not been raised in a post-trial motion, it is waived for appeal 

purposes.” Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54 (Pa. 

1998) (citations omitted). “Our Court has consistently refused to entertain 

appeals from orders or verdicts following nonjury trials in actions at law when 

no post-trial motions have been filed.” Lenhart v. Cigna Cos., 824 A.2d 

1193, 1196 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Here, Appellants argue that the filing of post-trial motions would have 

served no purpose because the parties filed briefs after the trial court heard 

testimony at trial. Appellants maintain that these briefs discussed all of the 

issues before the court, allowed the court to consider all of Appellants’ 

arguments, and consequently, post-trial motions would not have been helpful 

to the court. Thus, Appellants assert that post-trial motions were not 

necessary in this case. We disagree.

“When the words of a rule are clear and free from all ambiguity, the 

letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 

Pa.R.C.P. 127. A plain reading of Rule 227.1 is clear and unambiguous – in a 
J-S54032-18

- 5 -

case of trial without a jury, a party must file post-trial motions after the filing 

of the decision in the case and any issues not raised in a post-trial motion are 

waived. Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(b)(2), (c)(2). This interpretation of Rule 227.1 is 

well-settled. See, e.g., Chalkey, 805 A.2d at 496; Lane Enterprises, 710 

A.2d 54; Lenhart, 824 A.2d at 1196. Following the trial court’s decision in 

this case, Appellants did not file any post-trial motions and have therefore 

waived all issues on appeal.

Appellants’ argument relating to their filing of briefs after the trial court 

heard testimony at trial and before its decision disregards the purpose served 

by post-trial motions that our Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized. In 

Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons, 782 A.2d 996 (Pa. 2001), our Supreme 

Court stated:

[T]he filing of post-trial motions . . . ensure[s] that that the trial 

judge has a chance to correct alleged trial errors. This opportunity 

to correct alleged errors . . . advances the orderly and efficient 

use of our judicial resources. First, appellate courts will not be 

required to expend time and energy reviewing points on which no 

trial ruling has been made. Second, the trial court may promptly 

correct the asserted error. With the issue properly presented, the 

trial court is more likely to reach a satisfactory result, thus 

obviating the need for appellate review on this issue. Or if a new 

trial is necessary, it may be granted by the trial court without 

subjecting both the litigants and the courts to the expense and 

delay inherent in appellate review. Third, appellate courts will be 

free to more expeditiously dispose of the issues properly 

preserved for appeal[.]

Id. (citing Benson v. Penn Central Transp. Co., 342 A.2d 393, 394 (Pa. 

1975)).
J-S54032-18

- 6 -

By failing to file post-trial motions in this case, Appellants precluded the 

trial court from having the chance to correct any alleged errors in its decision 

or the rationale underlying its decision. The arguments formulated in 

Appellants’ pre-decisional briefs were made without Appellants’ knowledge of 

the trial court’s decision, as the court had not yet rendered its verdict. Thus, 

Appellants’ reliance on their pre-decisional briefs cannot substitute for Rule 

227.1’s mandate regarding post-verdict procedure. Indeed, Appellants cite 

no authority for the proposition that pre-decisional briefs may act as a 

substitute for the filing of post-trial motions. In sum, Appellants cannot 

circumvent Rule 227.1.

Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants’ failure to file post-trial 

motions resulted in the waiver of all issues raised by Appellants on appeal, 

and thus affirm the judgment entered in favor of Cintas and against 

Appellants.

Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/2/2018
J-S54032-18

- 7 -