J-S42012- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 STEPHEN J. BYERS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

ERNEST E. LIGGETT AND MARILYN KOSTIK LIGGETT Appellants No. 1730 WDA 2013

Appeal from the Order September 30 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD 09-013539

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 Appellants, Ernest E. Liggett and Marilyn Kostik Lig gett, appeal pro se from the order denying their Motion to Postpone or S tay Sheriff’s Sale entered September 30, 2013, by the Honorable Alan D avid Hertzberg, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We quash the ap peal as interlocutory. This appeal is one in a long line of attempts by Appe llants to postpone a sheriff’s sale of real property locate d in Allegheny County. In the fall of 2006, Appellants obtained short-term loans from Appell ee, Stephen J. Byers, along with his agreement to purchase additional parcel s of real property located in Brownsville, Fayette County for use in real estate development. When Appellants failed to repay the loans or purchase the additional property, the parties entered into a settlement agre ement in the Court ofJ-S42012- 14

- 2 -

Common Pleas of Fayette County that required Appella nts to either pay Byers a specified sum of money within 45 days or have ju dgment entered against them. When Appellants did not pay the money within the agreed upon timeframe, Byers entered judgment against Appell ants in Fayette County for $145,000.00. In July 2009, Byers transferred the judgment to Alle gheny County, and issued a Writ of Execution for the sale of personalty an d realty located at 43 Brownstone Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235. Ov er the following years, Appellants have filed various motions to stay or obviate the proceedings, all of which have been denied by the tria l court and affirmed by this Court. Relative to the instant proceedings, on Se ptember 20, 2013, Appellants filed yet another Motion to Stay or Postp one a Sheriff’s Sale scheduled for November 4, 2013. The trial court denie d Appellants’ motion on September 30, 2013. This timely appeal followed. An appeal will lie only from a final order unless ot herwise permitted by

statute or rule. See Pa.R.A.P. 341. Further, an interlocutory appeal as of right will lie from orders that are interlocutory in nature. See Pa.R.A.P. 311 (an appeal may be taken as of right from orders affe cting judgments, attachments, changes of venue, injunctions, peremptory ju dgment in mandamus, new trials, partition, or other cases made ap pealable by statute or rule). Instantly, as the trial court’s order denying Appella nts’ motion to stay did not effectively end the litigation or terminate the proceedings, it isJ-S42012- 14

- 3 -

interlocutory. This Court has further held that an o rder denying a motion to stay is not appealable as of right. See Farmers First Bank v. Wagner , 687 A.2d 390, 391-392 (Pa. Super. 1997) (order refu sing to grant motion to stay not appealable). Accordingly, we are constrained t o quash Appellants’ appeal as interlocutory. Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/23/2014