J

- A06043

- 18

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
LYDIA HOOVER AND LONI E MAE SNOBERGER, N/K/A LONIE M. MCDONALD, CO

- EXECUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF CLAIR A. SNOBERGER, Appellants

v. CHARLES A. SMITH, JR., SHIRLEY M. SMITH, HUSBAND AND WIFE; TYLER J. SMITH, AND NATALIE C. SMITH, HUSBAND AND WIFE; LYLE R. SMITH AND DA W N S . SMITH, HUSBAND AND WIFE; AND LANE SMITH ,

Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1452 WDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered September 6 , 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County C ivil Division at No(s): No. 2016 GN 2844
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E, SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 13, 2018 Lydia Hoover and Lonie Mae Snoberger (the Snobergers) ap peal from the September 6, 2017 order dismissi ng the Snobergers’ complaint for injunction

. We affirm. This appeal arises from a dispute between the Snobergers and Charles Smith, Jr., Shirley Smith, Tyler Smith, Natalie Smith, Lyle Smith, Dawn Smith, and Lane Smith (the Smiths) over the use of and width of Seneca Lane. The Snobergers utilize Seneca Lane as the sole means of ingress and egress toJ

- A06043

- 18

- 2

-

their property; the Smiths live along and own property adjacent to and under
Seneca Lane. On September 16, 2016, the Snobergers filed a co mplaint for injunction to prevent the Smiths “from interfering with the [Snobergers’] ability to transport necessary farm equipment to harvest the crops growing on [the Snobergers’] land[, ] ” and “to prevent [the Smiths ] from imposing [their] width limitation[.] ” Complaint for Injunction, 9/16/2016, at ¶ ¶ 7 , 11

. On October 20, 2016, the trial court issued a n order (1) granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the Smiths from interfering with the Snobergers’ use of Seneca Lane as it currently exist ed; (2) allow ing each party the opportunity to conduct a survey of Seneca Lane ; and (3) schedul ing an evidentiary hearing on the complaint for injunction

. The Snobergers filed an amended complaint for injunction on January 20, 2017, and the Smiths respon ded with answ ers and new matter o n February 14, 2017, and February 16, 2017.
The trial court held e videntiary hearings on January 31, February 16 , February 17, and April 10, 2017 , at which the Snobergers and the Smiths presented testimony and evidence

. The Snober gers argued that “they are entitled to widen Seneca Lane because it is a private road.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/6/2017, at 7. On September 6, 2017 , the trial court denied the Snobergers’ complaint and amended complaint for injunction, and found that: (1) “[the Snobergers] have a prescri ptive easement over Seneca Lane [;]” (2) “[t]he present width of the roadbed of Seneca Lane represents the width ofJ

- A06043

- 18

- 3

-

the prescriptive easement[;]” and (3) “[the Smiths] have no legal right to impede the [Snobergers’] use of th eir prescriptive easement [for ingress and egress to their property

. ] ” Id. at 9

- 10. On September 22, 2017, the Snobergers filed post

- trial motions. On October 3, 2017, b efore the trial court ruled on the post

- trial motion , the Snobergers filed a notic e of appeal. 1 The Snobergers present the following
issue s for our consideration. [1.] Did the trial court err or misapply the law by failing to follow the [o]pinion and [d]ecree of Judge Baldridge as to ownership of the roadway? [2.] Did the trial court err or misapply the law in concluding that [the Snobergers] have a prescriptive easement over Seneca Lane? [3.] Did the trial court err or misapply the law in concluding that the present width of the roadbed of Seneca Lane represents the width of the pres criptive easement? The Snobergers’ Brief at 4

. Before we reach the merits of the Snobergers’ claims, we must
determine whether the claims were preserved. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1 provides that post

- trial
motions must be filed within t en days , and that any issues not raised timely are waived. Pa.R.C.P. 227.1( b)(2), ( c). Here, the Snobergers filed post

- trial

1 The trial court did not order the Snobergers to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statemen t ; however, the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) by issuing a statement indicating its reliance on its September 6, 2017 opinion and order

.J

- A06043

- 18

- 4

-

motions on September 22, 2017, more than ten days after the September 6,
2017 trial court order. 2 Thus, to the extent the Snober gers were required to file post

- trial motions, the issues are waived. The Snobergers argue that pursuant to Chalkey v. Roush , 757 A.2d 972 (Pa. Super. 2000) ( en banc ), they did not have to file post

- trial motions. The Snobergers’ Response to Rule to Show Cause, 12/1/2017 (citing Chalkey , 757 A.2d at 978 , for the proposition that an appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file post

- trial motions where the order appealed from was “neither
entitled a decree nis i nor [] indicate [d] that post

- trial motions [were] required”). T h e Snobergers are incorrect , because the exception they rely

upon does not apply to future cases. In fact, our Supreme Court held specifically that pursuant to Rule 227.1 of the Pennsylva nia Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are required to file post

- trial motions from a trial court ’ s order following a trial in both actions at law and in equity in order to properly preserve issues that they wish to raise on appeal, [but] we also find that this rule shall be applied prospectively only.

*** [W]e find that there is no excuse for a party’ s failure to file post

tria l motions from a trial court’ s order following an equity tria l

... With this unequivocal rule, there is no danger that parties will be confused as to whether they should file post

- trial motions or proceed directly to an appeal from an order entered by a trial court in an action in equity.

2 However, the Snobergers filed their notice of appeal within 30 days of the trial court’s September 6, 2017 order in this case. Thus, we have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.J

- A06043

- 18

- 5

-

Chalkey v. Roush , 805 A.2d 491, 492, 496

- 97 (Pa. 2002) (some citations and footnotes omitted). Moreover, the hearings in this case had all the hallmarks of a trial. See City of Philadelphia v. New Life Evangelistic Church , 1 14 A.3d 472, 478 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (emphasis omitted) ( summa rizing Newman Dev. Grp. of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi's Family Markets, Inc. , 52 A.3d 1233, 1247 (Pa. 2012) ) ( “ Thus, the Supreme Court, while recognizing that not all court proceedings constitute “trials” f or the purpose of Pa. R.C.P. [] 227.1,
nevertheles s signaled that a hearing that bears the hallmarks of a trial by requiring or admitting, or [] offering a party the opportunity to present
additional evidence , does constitute a ‘trial’ for the purposes of Pa. R.C.P. []
227.1 [.] ”). Accordingly , we conclude that timely

- filed post

- trial mot ions were required. Because t he Snobergers failed to file timely post

- trial motions, all
claims are waived.
Order affirmed.J

- A06043

- 18

- 6

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/13/2018