J-A08020-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

HALFPENNY MANAGEMENT CO. AND 

RICHARD CARR

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellees

v.

JAMES D. SCHNELLER 

Appellant No. 521 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered January 15, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Civil Division at No(s): 13-3232

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

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 24, 2017

James D. Schneller appeals, pro se, from the trial court’s January 15, 

2016 order denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award and order 

denying reinstatement of appeal. After careful review, we affirm.1

A prior panel of our Court aptly summarized the underlying facts of the 

instant case:

This is a landlord-tenant matter that [Schneller’s] landlord 

litigated before the magisterial district judge, who ruled in favor 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 We, herein, deny Schneller’s motion for peremptory writ of mandamus and 

writ of prohibition.
J-A08020-17

- 2 -

of the landlord.[2] [Schneller] initiated this action by appealing 

from the magisterial district judge to the court of common 

plea[s]; he simultaneously petitioned to proceed in forma 

pauperis. On April 13, 2013, [Schneller’s] application to proceed 

in forma pauperis was denied on the ground that his ability to 

pay court costs was “established in numerous other filings with 

the Court.” Order of Court, 4/13/13, at 1. The case proceeded 

to arbitration. On January 6, 2012, the arbitrators entered an 

award in favor of the landlord granting the landlord possession 

and monetary damages of $2,000.

On February 5, 2014, [Schneller] filed an appeal without paying 

the court costs. Even though previously denied the right to 

proceed in forma pauperis, [Schneller] filed another request for 

the same relief. His second request to proceed in forma 

pauperis was denied on March 4, 2014, and the docket proves 

that Pa.R.C.P. 236 notice of the order denying [Schneller] in 

forma pauperis status was sent the same day. 

[Schneller] did not forward the costs for filing the appeal from 

arbitration, and it was stricken on March 21, 2014. See

Pa.R.C.P. 240(c)(1)(ii) (requiring petitioner to pay the filing fee 

for an appeal if a petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied 

and requiring the prothonotary to thereafter strike an appeal if 

the fee is not paid). [Schneller] petitioned for reinstatement of 

his appellate rights nunc pro tunc, and claimed he never 

received notice of the March 4, 2014 order denying him in forma 

pauperis status. He also petitioned for reconsideration of denial 

of in forma pauperis status and for a stay of eviction.

In [an] order entered on July 8, 2014, the trial court denied 

[Schneller’s] motion for [reinstatement] of his appellate rights 

from the arbitration award, his motion for reconsideration of 

denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and his 

motion for stay of eviction. It found incredible [Schneller’s] 

claim that he had not received notice of the March 4, 2014 order 

denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. It based 

its credibility determination on the fact that [Schneller] received 

notice of the striking of the appeal as well as all other notices 

____________________________________________

2 Appellee Halfpenny Management Co. (“Halfpenny”) was awarded 

possession of the premises at issue and $2,000 in attorney’s fees, plus 

interest and costs.
J-A08020-17

- 3 -

disseminated in the proceeding. The trial court also stated: 

“[A]s a result of the [Schneller’s] long history with this [c]ourt 

involving countless cases, [Schneller] had no credibility with the 

[c]ourt.” [Trial Court] Opinion, 8/13/14, at 2. [Schneller] filed 

this appeal from the July 8, 2014 order. He then filed a petition 

for stay of eviction pending this appeal, which was denied, and 

the same request for relief with this Court, which also declined to 

award [Schneller] relief.

In this appeal, [Schneller] argues that the trial court erred in 

denying him the right to appeal nunc pro tunc and to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and he asks this panel to revisit [the] denial of 

the stay of eviction.

Halfpenny Management Co. and Richard Carr v. James D. Schneller, 

No. 2095 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. filed April 16, 2015). On appeal, our Court 

“determined that the trial court correctly refused to reinstate [Schneller’s] 

appeal from the arbitration award, [and] decline[d] to issue a stay of any 

eviction.” Id. at 6. 

On February 24, 2016, Schneller filed the instant notice of appeal from 

the trial court’s January 15, 2016 order denying his motion to vacate the 

arbitrator’s award. On March 17, 2016, our Court ordered Schneller to enter 

judgment on the trial court docket, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 301, or suffer 

dismissal of the appeal. See Dunlop by Hoffman v. State Farm Ins., 546 

A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 1988) (order denying petition to vacate arbitration 

award not final appealable order when order never reduced to final 

judgment). When Schneller failed to timely comply with the order, our Court 

sua sponte quashed the appeal on April 15, 2016. However, on May 3, 

2016, Schneller filed an application to reconsider our quashal order. On 

June 2, 2016, our Court granted the application for reconsideration and 
J-A08020-17

- 4 -

reinstated Schneller’s appeal. See Order, 6/2/16. Schneller filed a timely 

court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of matters complained of 

on appeal. On appeal, Schneller raises the following issues:

(1) Has the trial court abused [its] discretion, erred in the law 

and findings, and deprived Constitutional rights, by 

denying the motion to strike or vacate [the] award of 

arbitrators and for leave to amend the complaint to add 

new evidence and claims?

(2) Has the trial court erred and may the court vacate, due to 

law of the case and coordinate jurisdiction prevalent over 

the matter of application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

(3) Has the trial court abused [its] discretion, erred in the law 

and findings, decided against the weight of the evidence, 

and deprived [Schneller of his] Constitutional Rights, by 

denying the earlier requested reinstatement of [his] 

appeal, and stay of writ of dispossession?

Appellant’s Brief, at 13.

Schneller first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion 

to strike the arbitrator’s award and leave to amend his complaint to add new 

evidence and claims. 

Initially, we note that Schneller never appealed from the arbitrator’s 

decision entered on January 6, 2014. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1308:

(a) An appeal from an award shall be taken by

(1) filing a notice of appeal in the form provided by Rule 

1313 with the prothonotary of the court in which the action 

is pending not later than thirty days after the day on which 

the prothonotary makes the notation on the docket that 

notice of entry of the arbitration award has been provided 

as required by Rule 1307(a)(3), and 
J-A08020-17

- 5 -

(2) payment to the prothonotary of the compensation of 

the arbitrators not exceeding fifty percent of the amount in 

controversy, which shall not be taxed as costs or be 

recoverable in any proceeding;

provided that the court, in an appropriate case, upon 

petition may permit the appellant to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

Pa.R.C.P. 1028. Thus, procedurally, in order to preserve any challenge to 

the arbitrator’s award, Schneller was required to file a timely notice of 

appeal from that order. Because of his procedural misstep, the fact that the 

trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate the arbitration award was 

reduced to judgment is of no moment. The fact remains that Schneller’s 

failure to properly preserve the initial challenge to the award precludes our 

review of the issue.3

Schneller’s second issue has already been disposed of in our Court’s 

prior panel decision. See Halfpenny Management Co., supra (because 

Schneller did not appeal from final orders dated April 13, 2013 and March 4, 

2014, that denied him in forma pauperis status, we were precluded from 

addressing whether court properly denied him such status based upon ability 

to pay court costs); see also Morgan Guarantee Trust Co. of new York 

____________________________________________

3 However, even if we were to address the merits of this issue, we would 

conclude that the trial court’s order denying Schneller’s motion to vacate the 

arbitrators’ award was not an abuse of discretion where Halfpenny provided 

written notice to Schneller to quit the leased premises effective February 28, 

2013; the parties had a month-to-month lease with the right to terminate 

for any reason or no reason at all; and, where Schneller refused to relinquish 

possession of the demised premises. 
J-A08020-17

- 6 -

v. Mowl, 705 A.2d 923 (Pa. Super. 1998) (where party fails to appeal final 

order, it operates as res judicata on issues decided). We will not revisit this 

issue.

In his final claim, Schneller re-raises the issue that the trial court 

improperly denied his request to reinstate his appeal. As our prior panel 

noted, the trial court “found incredible [Schneller’s] claim that he had not 

received notice of the March 4, 2014 order denying his application to 

proceed in forma pauperis.” Halfpenny Management Co., supra at 3, 

citing Trial Court Opinion, 8/13/14, at 2. Thus, Schneller was not excused 

from forwarding the costs for filing the appeal from arbitration and the 

appeal was properly stricken. See Pa.R.C.P. 240(c)(1)(ii) (requiring 

petitioner to pay filing fee for appeal if petition to proceed in forma pauperis

denied and requiring Prothonotary to thereafter strike appeal if fee not paid).

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/24/2017