J-A33032-16

 2017 PA Super 32

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

MICHAEL S. ZABLOCKI AND 

MARY JANE ZABLOCKI,

 Appellants

 v.

JEROME H. BEINING,

 Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 854 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered May 19, 2016 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County

Civil Division at No(s): E.Q. No 05-11080

BEFORE: LAZARUS, SOLANO, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2017

Michael S. Zablocki and Mary Jane Zablocki (collectively, the 

Zablockis) appeal from order entered May 19, 2016, wherein the trial court 

adopted the Master’s report and directed the public sale of real property 

jointly owned by the Zablockis and Jerome H. Beining (Beining).1 Upon 

review, we quash this appeal.

This case presents a claim for partition of real property of 

three parcels of land located in Brady and Slippery Rock 

Townships, Butler County, Pennsylvania.

In December 1997, the Zablockis and their step-son/son, 

[Beining], purchased the subject real property, one[-]half 

interest to the Zablockis and one[-] half interest to Beining. The 

sum of [f]ifty [t]housand [d]ollars ($50,000.00) was paid, 

though the parties dispute who paid it and in what portion.

 

1 Bening is Mary Jane Zablocki’s son and Michael Zablocki’s step-son.
J-A33032-16

- 2 -

While the property was obtained with the intention that a 

building would be constructed to support a business venture by 

the parties, said business failed and the Zablockis proceeded to 

execute a mortgage and construct a home on the premises, with 

the consent of Beining. Through expert testimony, as accepted 

by the [m]aster in [p]artition, Gwilym A. Price, III, Esquire, [(the 

Master)] the house and all of its improvements have been valued 

at [$200,000.00].

Upon its completion, the Zablockis maintained the 

residential dwelling at their sole and separate cost, having paid 

most, if not all, of the real estate taxes and insurance. While the 

Zablockis did exclusively occupy the subject property they paid 

Beining, the co-tenant, no rental fee at any time. 

Notwithstanding, Beining makes no claim to the house or any 

substructure on the land associated therewith, and the parties 

agree that the mortgage remains the sole obligation and 

responsibility of the Zablockis.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/2016, at 1-2 (citations removed). 

On September 12, 2005, the Zablockis initiated suit by filing a 

complaint for partition of real property. On January 30, 2006, Beining filed 

an answer and new matter, and requested the trial court “appoint a Master 

according to the law to inspect the premises and to partition it[.]” Bening’s 

Answer and New Matter, 1/30/2006, at 4. The Zablockis filed a reply on 

April 5, 2006. No order was entered by the trial court directing partition, 

and the next activity on the docket was not until April 25, 2013, when the 

Zablockis filed a motion for a status conference. Therein, the Zablockis 

averred that the parties had undergone discovery and negotiations, and 

were not able to “amicably resolve th[e] case.” Motion for Status 

Conference, 4/25/2013, at 3. A status conference was held on July 19, 

2013, wherein the trial court appointed the Master.
J-A33032-16

- 3 -

A hearing was held by the Master on April 7, 2015. As 

outlined in the Master’s [r]eport, neither party provided the 

Master with a proposed subdivision of the whole property. 

Additionally, the Master provided a list of reasons [why] 

subdivision of the property is not feasible, practical, or, in any 

uncertain terms, fair. 

On or about August 2015, the Master filed his Master’s 

Report outlining his findings and proposed resolution1 which was 

accepted by [the trial court via order of August 31, 2015]. On or 

about August 24, 2015, the Zablockis filed [exceptions], 

objecting to the sale of the subject property in its entirety and 

division of the proceeds.

______

1 The Master recommended that “the [trial court] 

order the listing of the property with a Butler County 

multi-list broker (to be determined) at a price 

recommended by the broker, but not less than 

$380,000 (the value of the land, plus estimated 

value of the house improvements) at a 6% 

commission basis with reservation of oil and gas 

under a new non-surface disturbance lease only and 

subject to any existing lease rights.” 

[A]rgument was held on said [Exceptions] on May 19, 

2016.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/2016, at 2-3 (citations removed). Following 

argument, the trial court issued an order in which it adopted the findings of 

the Master and directed the property be sold. This appeal followed. 

Before we may address the Zablockis’ substantive issues, we must first 

determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Neither party has 

raised this issue; however, it is well-settled that this Court may raise the 

issue of our jurisdiction sua sponte. See e.g., M. London, Inc. v. Fedders 

Corp., 452 A.2d 236, 237 (Pa. Super. 1982).
J-A33032-16

- 4 -

Both parties incorrectly assert that this order is appealable pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(7), which recognizes orders directing partition as 

interlocutory orders appealable as of right. The parties confuse the order 

adopting the Master’s finding and directing a sale with an order directing 

partition that must be filed prior to master proceedings.2

If the court determines that there shall be partition because of a 

default or admission or after a hearing or trial, the court shall 

enter an order directing partition which shall set forth the names 

of all the co-tenants and the nature and extent of their interests 

in the property. 

Pa.R.C.P. 1557. See also Pa.R.C.P. 1558 (“The court, after the entry of the 

order directing partition, shall direct the parties or their attorneys to appear 

for a preliminary conference[.] ... The court, at any time after the preliminary 

conference, may appoint a master to hear the entire matter or to conduct 

any sale, or to act upon only specified issues or matters relating to the 

carrying out of the order of partition.”).

Here, as noted, there was no order entered directing partition.3 

Instead, this case lay stagnant for several years until the Zablockis moved 

for a status conference. 

An order directing the sale of real estate is certainly not a final order, 

as it has not disposed of all claims, as credits and debts remain to be 

 

2 Although the parties have proceeded as if there were an order of partition, 

the record does not contain such an order. 

3 Even if there were such an order, based on both parties’ agreeing to 

partition, there would be nothing to appeal.
J-A33032-16

- 5 -

considered. See Gasper v. Gasper, 432 A.2d 613, 615 (Pa. Super. 1981). 

Further, it is not an order directing partition that would permit an 

interlocutory appeal of right as recognized by Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(7).4 In light 

of the above, we find the May 19, 2016 order interlocutory and nonappealable. 

Accordingly, we quash this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/10/2017

 

4 This rule applies to an order granting partition pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1557, 

as stated supra. An appeal is also allowed when the trial court issues its 

order distributing the proceeds of the sale. The parties would allow at least 

a third appeal from the order directing the method of sale. See Calabrese 

v. Collier Twp. Mun. Auth., 248 A.2d 236, 238 (Pa. 1968) (O’Brien, J., 

Dissenting) (“It is more important to prevent the chaos inherent in 

bifurcated, trifurcated, and multifurcated appeals than it is to correct each 

mistake of a trial court the moment it occurs.”); Hession Condemnation 

Case, 242 A.2d 432, 437 (Pa. 1968) (O’Brien, J., Dissenting) (“The 

bifurcated appeal foisted upon the courts can only be termed a judicial 

Hydra. Would that a Hercules could appear ... to slay this monster.”).