J-A07009-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

STEVEN D. ST. CLAIR

v.

GARY F. AND LAURA D. SPENCER 

Appellants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1103 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 8, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County 

Civil Division at No(s): 7017-2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 15, 2018

Gary F. and Laura D. Spencer appeal from the judgment1 entered in the 

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, granting quiet title to Appellee, 

Steven D. St. Clair. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding 

Appellee established adverse possession of the disputed parcel of land. We

affirm. 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

1 Appellants purport to appeal from the order entered June 13, 2017, denying 

their post-trial motion. See Notice of Appeal, 7/11/17. “Orders denying posttrial motions, however, are not appealable. Rather it is the subsequent 

judgment that is the appealable order when a trial has occurred.” Harvey v. 

Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523, 524 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation 

omitted). Judgment was not entered until August 8, 2017, making Appellants’ 

notice of appeal prematurely filed. However, as judgment has been entered 

on the verdict, we will treat the notice of appeal previously filed in this case 

as filed after the entry of judgment. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5). The appeals 

statement has been corrected. 
J-A07009-18

- 2 -

In 2015, Appellee purchased a property located at 565 Salem Boulevard 

in Berwick, Pennsylvania, from the Estate of George W. McQuown, Sr. Shortly 

after purchasing the property, Appellee learned he did not hold fee title to the 

parcel of land on which his property was located. Therefore, Appellee filed a 

complaint seeking quiet title to the parcel under a theory of adverse 

possession. Appellants, the record owners of the disputed parcel, contested 

Appellee’s claim. 

The matter proceeded to a non-jury trial. Both parties presented 

witnesses, as well as several documents supporting their claims. Included 

within these documents were the deeds to Appellee’s and Appellants’ 

respective parcels of lands, as well as the deed of sale from the Estate of 

McQuown to Appellee. After considering this evidence, the trial court 

determined Appellee had proven adverse possession of the disputed parcel 

and quieted title to Appellee. This appeal follows.2

On appeal, Appellants assert the trial court erred in failing to consider 

the lack of privity between Appellee and McQuown. Appellants contend that 

Appellee needed to establish privity with McQuown in order to tack on 

McQuown’s adverse use of the premises and establish adverse possession. 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant’s post-trial motion, filed on May 8, 2017, was untimely. See 

Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c)(2). However, because the trial court elected to decide 

Appellants’ post-trial motion on the merits, the issues raised therein are 

properly before us. See Behar v. Frazier, 724 A.2d 943, 945-946 (Pa. Super. 

1999); 16A Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 87:19 (2018). 
J-A07009-18

- 3 -

However, Appellants assert Appellee cannot establish this privity because his 

deed does not contain an actual description of the contested parcel, and 

therefore does not establish that the Estate of McQuown intended to convey 

McQuown’s adverse use of the property to Appellee. 

Based upon Appellants’ allegation of trial court error, the resolution of 

this appeal hinges on our examination of the parties’ respective deeds and the 

deed of sale. However, Appellants have completely failed to ensure that these 

documents are part of the certified record on appeal.

This Court cannot meaningfully review claims raised on appeal 

unless we are provided with a full and complete certified record. 

This requirement is not a mere “technicality” nor is this a question 

of whether we are empowered to complain sua sponte of lacune

in the record. In the absence of an adequate certified record, there 

is no support for an appellant’s arguments and, thus, there is no 

basis on which relief could be granted. 

Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc) 

(internal citation omitted). “[T]he ultimate responsibility of ensuring that the 

transmitted record is complete rests squarely upon the appellant and not upon 

the appellate courts.” Id (citation omitted).3

____________________________________________

3 While sections of the documents in question are included within the 

reproduced record, a document does not become part of the certified record 

by merely placing a copy in the reproduced record. See Preston, 904 A.2d at 

6 (“In this regard, our law is the same in both the civil and criminal context 

because, under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, any document 

which is not part of the officially certified record is deemed non-existent—a 

deficiency which cannot be remedied merely by including copies of the missing 

documents in a brief or in the reproduced record. ... Simply put, if a document 

is not in the certified record, the Superior Court may not consider it.”)

Interestingly, in an order from this Court filed December 22, 2017, we 
J-A07009-18

- 4 -

Without the documents at issue, there is no support for Appellant’s sole 

issue on appeal. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s sole issue on appeal waived. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/15/2018

____________________________________________

reminded the parties of this concept—and informed them of their right to 

request correction of the certified record in the trial court to include any 

omitted material. Neither party moved to correct the certified record.