J-S09011-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

KIRK J. ALCORN 

Appellant

v.

TERESA E. ALCORN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 534 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Decree Entered May 14, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court at No(s): Case No FD-16-003835

KIRK J. ALCORN

v.

TERESA E. ALCORN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 627 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Decree Entered May 14, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court at No(s): FD-003835

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 23, 2019

Kirk J. Alcorn (“Husband”) appeals from the resolution of the economic 

issues in his divorce from Teresa E. Alcorn (“Wife”).

1 Wife cross-appeals, 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Both Husband and Wife purported to appeal from the March 20, 2018 order 

resolving the parties’ exceptions to the master’s recommendations. The March 
J-S09011-19

- 2 -

raising her own challenges to the resolution of the economic issues involved. 

After careful review, we quash the appeal.

Given our resolution of this appeal, a full recounting of the procedural 

and factual background is unnecessary.

Briefly, after reviewing the evidence presented by the parties, the 

equitable distribution master recommended that Husband receive 55% of the 

marital estate and determined that a parcel of real estate owned by the parties 

(“the Kittanning property”) would be valued at $150,000. Both parties filed 

exceptions to the master’s recommendations. The trial court partially 

sustained three of Husband’s exceptions and dismissed Wife’s exceptions.

Importantly, the trial court found that neither party presented credible 

evidence of the value of the Kittnanning property and therefore remanded the 

case to the master for a re-hearing on this issue. These appeals followed. 

Before addressing the merits of the parties’ claims, we must first 

determine the appealability of the divorce decree. See Kensey v. Kensey, 

877 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005). We may raise this issue sua 

sponte, as the issue concerns our jurisdiction over the appeal. See id. “Under 

____________________________________________

20th order was not a final, appealable order. See Leister v. Leister, 684 

A.2d 192, 195 (Pa. Super. 1996) (en banc). In response to this Court’s rule 

to show cause, Husband caused the trial court to enter a divorce decree in 

this matter on May 14, 2018, in an attempt to perfect our jurisdiction. See 

Dean v. Bowling Green-Brandywine, 192 A.3d 1177, 1182 n.3 (Pa. Super. 

2018), allowance of appeal granted on other grounds, 203 A.3d 973 (Pa. 

2019). However, as discussed more fully below, even the divorce decree did 

not constitute a final, appealable order.
J-S09011-19

- 3 -

Pennsylvania law, an appeal may only be taken from an interlocutory order as 

of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311), from a final order (Pa.R.A.P. 341), from a collateral 

order (Pa.R.A.P. 313), or from an interlocutory order by permission (Pa.R.A.P. 

31[2], 1311, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b)).” Id., at 1287 (brackets in original) 

(citation omitted).

The March 20 order requires the parties “to obtain an appraisal or to 

obtain a joint appraisal” of the Kittanning property and further remands the 

action back to the master “for a determination of [that property’s] value[.]” 

Trial Court Order, 3/20/18, at 1. The May 14 divorce decree states that the 

trial court “retains jurisdiction of any claims raised by the parties to this action 

for which a final order has not yet been entered.” Divorce Decree, 5/14/18, 

at 2. 

There is nothing of record to establish that this is an appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 311, 312, or 313. Therefore, the only pathway for the parties’ 

appeals would be in response to the entering of a final order by the trial court. 

Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) defines a final order as one that “disposes of all claims and 

of all parties.” The certified record indicates that the trial court entered an 

order on August 7, 2018, directing the parties to schedule a new hearing after 

they had obtained appraisals of the Kittanning property. However, the record 

does not indicate that this hearing has ever been held. Accordingly, the 

divorce decree is not an appealable order, and we have no jurisdiction to 

entertain this appeal.
J-S09011-19

- 4 -

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/23/2019