IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Oak Tree Condominium Association, :

:

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 794 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: October 9, 2015

John R. Greene, Sr. and Linda M. :

Greene, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. :

and Gary A. Hartman, Sheriff :

BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge1

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: February 3, 2016

Before this Court is Oak Tree Condominium Association’s 

(Association) appeal of the February 9, 2015 order of the Mercer County Court of 

Common Pleas (Trial Court) denying the Association’s request to set aside the 

November 3, 2014 Sheriff’s sale of 112 D Clubhouse Drive, Shenango Township, 

West Middlesex, Pennsylvania (Property).

2

 

The Association’s first argument on appeal is procedural. Following 

the Trial Court’s order denying the Association’s request to set aside the Sheriff’s 

sale of the Property, the Association filed a motion for post-trial relief on February 

20, 2015. The Trial Court scheduled a hearing for disposition of the motion on 

March 26, 2015. On April 10, 2015, the Trial Court issued an opinion and order 

concluding that because the matter had not gone to trial, the motion for post-trial 

 

1 This case was assigned to the opinion writer on or before December 31, 2015, when President 

Judge Pellegrini assumed the status of senior judge. 

2 By October 6, 2015 order of this Court, appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. was precluded from 

filing a brief in this matter. The only appellee in this matter is Gary A. Hartman, Sheriff.
2

relief was properly styled as a motion for reconsideration. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 

227.1(c). The Trial Court further concluded that because reconsideration of the 

February 9, 2015 order had not been expressly granted within the prescribed 30-

day period, the Trial Court no longer had jurisdiction to address the merits of the 

Association’s motion.3 We agree. Accordingly, we quash the Association’s 

appeal.

Before this Court, the Association argues that pursuant to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.14(Rule 227.1), a motion for post-trial 

 

3

The Trial Court also concluded that, even if jurisdiction was retained, the Association’s motion 

was without merit.

4

The relevant text of the rule and notes provide:

(a) After trial and upon the written Motion for Post-Trial Relief filed by any 

party, the court may

(1) order a new trial as to all or any of the issues; or

(2) direct the entry of judgment in favor of any party; or

(3) remove a nonsuit; or

(4) affirm, modify or change the decision; or

(5) enter any other appropriate order.

Note: The motion for post-trial relief replaces the 

following motions and exceptions: motion for new 

trial, motion for judgment notwithstanding the 

verdict, motion upon the whole record after 

disagreement of a jury, motion in arrest of 

judgment, motion to remove a nonsuit and 

exceptions following the decision of the judge in a 

trial without jury.

The following rules provide for the filing of 

exceptions, e.g., Equity Rule 1534 (exceptions to a 

fiduciary's account), Partition Rule 1569 

(exceptions to a master's report) and Divorce Rule 

1920.55-2 (exceptions to a master's report), Support 

Rule 1910.12(e) (exceptions to a hearing officer's 

report) and Execution Rule 3136(d) (exceptions to 

sheriff's schedule of proposed distribution).
3

 

(b) Except as otherwise provided by Pa.R.E. 103(a), post-trial relief may not be 

granted unless the grounds therefor,

(1) if then available, were raised in pre-trial proceedings or by 

motion, objection, point for charge, request for findings of fact or 

conclusions of law, offer of proof or other appropriate method at 

trial; and

Note: If no objection is made, error which could 

have been corrected in pre-trial proceedings or 

during trial by timely objection may not constitute a 

ground for post-trial relief.

***

(2) are specified in the motion. The motion shall state how the 

grounds were asserted in pre-trial proceedings or at trial. Grounds 

not specified are deemed waived unless leave is granted upon 

cause shown to specify additional grounds.

(c) Post-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after

(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to agree, 

or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or

(2) notice of nonsuit or 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 post-trial motion.

Note: A motion for post-trial relief may be filed 

following a trial by jury or a trial by a judge 

without a jury pursuant to Rule 1038. A motion 

for post-trial relief may not be filed to orders 

disposing of preliminary objections, motions for 

judgment on the pleadings or for summary 

judgment, motions relating to discovery or other 

proceedings which do not constitute a trial. See 

U. S. National Bank in Johnstown v. Johnson, 

487 A.2d 809 (Pa. 1985).

***

(d) A motion for post-trial relief shall specify the relief requested and may request 

relief in the alternative. Separate reasons shall be set forth for each type of relief 

sought.

***

Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1 (emphasis added).
4

relief is proper when a party is appealing an order under the Uniform 

Condominium Act, 68 Pa. C.S. §§ 3101-3414. In support of this argument, the 

Association relies upon Centennial Station Condominium Association v. Schaefer 

Company Builders, 800 A.2d 379 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), and specifically this Court’s 

statement that “[b]oth parties sought post-trial relief, and the original order was 

modified by orders of May 31, 2001 and June 6, 2001.” Id. at 382. In relying on 

Centennial Station, the Association’s argument overlooks the fact that the parties 

in Centennial Station were before this Court on appeal following a bench trial. Id. 

In the instant matter, there simply was no trial. 

Where a party has filed a timely motion for reconsideration following 

entry of a final order and the trial court has expressly granted the request for 

reconsideration, the 30-day period within which an appeal must be taken will stop 

and begin to run anew only after the entry of the trial court’s decision on 

reconsideration. Pa. R.A.P. 903(a), 1701(b)(3). A party’s filing of a motion for 

reconsideration, however, does not stay the appeal period; the appeal period is only 

tolled where the trial court “expressly grants” the request for reconsideration. Pa. 

R.A.P. 1701(b); Moore v. Moore, 634 A.2d 163, 167 (Pa. 1993) (“Rule 1701(b) of 

the [Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure] codified this well established 

principle regarding the inherent authority of the trial court, and clarified the fact 

that a motion for reconsideration does not act as a stay of the appeal period.”); In 

re Merrick’s Estate, 247 A.2d 450, 454-455 (Pa. 1968) (a timely request for 

reconsideration “would not have had the effect of tolling the appeal statute where 

no stay of proceedings has been asked and granted”). An order that “expressly 

grants” a request for reconsideration must clearly state that the final order is 

rescinded and reconsideration is granted; “the establishment of a briefing schedule, 
5

hearing date, or issuance of a rule to show cause does not suffice,” to toll the 30-

day period within which a party must appeal. Valley Forge Center Associates v. 

Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 (Pa. Super. 1997).

By contrast, where a trial has taken place and timely post-trial motions 

have been filed pursuant to Rule 227.1, the appeal period does not begin to run 

until the trial court has issued a decision on the post-trial motions. Chalkey v. 

Rouse, 805 A.2d 491, 496 (Pa. 2002); Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co.,

710 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1998). Pursuant to Rule 227.1, post-trial motions are mandatory 

where a party seeks to preserve issues that the party wishes to raise on appeal 

following a trial. Chalkey, 805 A.2d at 492 (Pa. 2002). The purpose of Rule 227.1 

is to allow the trial court the opportunity to examine its ruling and correct any 

errors in the first instance, as well as to frame the issues should appellate review be 

necessary. Chalkey, 805 A.2d at 494 n.9.

While trial courts should be flexible in considering whether filings 

may be construed as motions for post-trial relief or motions for reconsideration, the 

discretion a trial court may exercise is limited by its jurisdiction. Kurtas v. Kurtas, 

555 A.2d 804, 806 (Pa. 1989); Arches Condominium Association v. Robinson, __ 

A.3d__, __, (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 361 C.D. 2015, filed December 29, 2015), 2015 WL 

9467327, slip op. at 3-5; De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Rozentsvit, 

939 A.2d 915, 923 (Pa. Super. 2007); Gemini Equipment Co. v. Pennsy Supply, 

Inc., 595 A.2d 1211, 1213 (Pa. Super. 1991). A timely motion styled as one for 

reconsideration where post-trial motions are proper can be treated as a post-trial 

motion where the request for relief comports with the requirements delineated in 

Rule 227.1(a)(4)—to affirm, modify or change a decision—but an impermissible 

motion for post-trial relief cannot be treated as a proper motion for reconsideration 
6

where the appeal period has run before the motion is acted upon. Prior to the 30-

day appeal period, a trial court has broad authority to modify or rescind an order, 

and is within its authority to exercise its discretion to decide even untimely 

motions where there is no objection. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 5505 (“a court upon notice 

to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry...if no 

appeal from such order has been taken or allowed.”); Arches Condominium 

Association v. Robinson, __ A.3d__, __, 2015 WL 9467327 at *4-5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2015). However, a trial court relinquishes its ability to act once the 30-day period 

has passed and a motion for reconsideration has not been expressly granted to toll 

the appeal period.

In the instant matter, post-trial motions were improperly filed and the 

Trial Court did not expressly grant reconsideration. Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1(c); Coco 

Brothers, Inc. v. Board of Public Education of School District of Pittsburgh, 608 

A.2d 1035, 1036-1037 (Pa. 1992). Instead, the Trial Court issued an order 

scheduling a hearing to address the Association’s post-trial motions on March 26, 

2015. (See Certified Record Item No. 23, Trial Court’s February 23, 2015 

scheduling order.) The opposing parties below objected to the Association’s 

request for relief, arguing that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction because the 30 

days within which the Trial Court had broad authority to modify or rescind its 

order had passed. The Trial Court examined the Association’s motion and 

determined that it was properly one for reconsideration. In most instances the Trial 

Court could have then considered whether treating the motion as if it had been 

properly filed by the Association would prejudice the opposing parties. Kurtas, 

555 A.2d at 806; Arches Condominium, __ A.3d at __, slip op. at 4-5. However, 

because the improper filing allowed the appeal period to run, the Trial Court 
7

lacked discretion to treat the motion as though it had been properly filed because 

the Trial Court was without jurisdiction.

Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure, the 

Association was required to appeal the Trial Court’s February 9, 2015 order within 

30 days or file a motion for reconsideration, which if granted, would result in an 

appealable order. The Association did not appeal the Trial Court’s February 9, 

2015 order and the Association did not file a motion for reconsideration that was 

expressly granted by the Trial Court. Instead, the Association has appealed to this 

Court from the Trial Court’s April 10, 2015 opinion and order where the Trial 

Court noted its lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, denied the Association’s 

request for reconsideration. The Trial Court’s April 10, 2015 order is a nonappealable order. See, e.g., In re Merrick’s Estate, 247 A.2d at 454-455; City of 

Philadelphia v. Frempong, 865 A.2d 314, 318-319 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 

Accordingly, we quash the Association’s appeal. 

__________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Oak Tree Condominium Association, :

:

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 794 C.D. 2015

: 

John R. Greene, Sr. and Linda M. :

Greene, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. :

and Gary A. Hartman, Sheriff :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3

rd day of February, 2016, the appeal in the abovecaptioned matter is QUASHED.

__________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge