J

- S39018

- 23

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

KEVIN & LISA HOLLINGER

Appellants

v.

JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELLE MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1623 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 14, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):

20

- 03489

KEVIN & LISA HOLLINGER

Appellants

v.

JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELLE MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1624 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 14, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):

20

- 03489

KEVIN & LISA HOLLINGER

Appellants

v. :

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIAJ

- S39018

- 23

- 2

-

JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELLE MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD AND JOHN

DOES 1

- 10, JOHN DOE CORP. 1

- 10 :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 1625 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered September 28, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):

20

- 03489

KEVIN AND LISA HOLLINGER, HIS

WIFE

Appellants

v.

JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELE MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD AND JOHN

DOES 1

- 10, JOHN DOE CORP. 1

- 10 :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1626 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered July 19, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):

20 3489

KEVIN AND LISA HOLLINGER

Appellants

v.

JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELE MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1629 MDA 2022J

- S39018

- 23

- 3

-

D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD AND JOHN

DOES 1

- 10, JOHN DOE CORP. 1

- 10 :

Appeal from the Order Entered November 16, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):

20 3489

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JANUARY 3, 2024

These consolidated appeals are filed from o rder s granting Appellee

Jennifer Dietrich’s m otion s in l imine

. Because these appeals are not properly

before us, we quash.

Given our disposition, we briefly summarize the facts of the case which

arises from the sale of a residential property in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.

Appellants Kevin and Lisa Hollinger purchased the property from Dietrich.

Dietrich was represented in the sale by Appellees Michele McCartney and

Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage (“Coldwell Banker”) . The Hollingers

retained Appellees Lisa Tiger and Advance Realty, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Gold

(“Advance Realty”) to assist them with the purchase

. In March 2020 , t he

Hollingers brought a complaint against Dietrich, McCartney, Coldwell Banker,

Tiger

, and Advance Realty

. The complaint alleged all d efendants either

fraudulently or negligently concealed water infiltration, defective construction,

and moisture damage at the p roperty, in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices

and Consumer Protection Law and the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law

.

The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of

McCartney

, Coldwell Ban ker , Tiger, and Advance Realty

. The only remainingJ

- S39018

- 23

- 4

-

defendant at that point was Dietrich. The court set a trial d a t e to begin on

October 4, 2022 . Prior to trial, Dietrich filed several motions in limine . The

trial court granted three of Dietrich’s motions in limine

, specifically her motion

to exc lude the expert testimony of the Hollingers ’ experts, her motion to

exclude any agreement other than the Agreement of Sale due to the parol

evidence rule an d the integration clause contained in the Agreement of Sale,

and her motion to exclude testimony regarding the Seller Disclosure

Statement

. The court found that Dietrich’s remaining motion seeking to limit

testimony regarding alleged water infiltration that occurred was moot because

of the court’s rul ings on her other motions

. See Trial Court Rule 1925(a)

Opinion, filed 12/8/ 2 2, at 15

- 16. The court noted in it s Rule 1925 (a) Opinion

that after it granted Dietrich’s motions in limine, it “removed the case from

the trial list as the [Hollingers ] did not have a viable cause of action against

any defendant in this matter.” Id. at 15.

The Holli n gers filed several appeals, including from the orders granting

summary judgment in favor of four of the defendants, as well as from the

orders granting Dietrich’s motions in limine. This Court consolidated the

appeals at Nos. 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, and 1629 MDA 2022.

O n January 23 , 202 3 , this Court issued a rule upon the Hollinger s to

show cause as to the appealability of the trial court ’ s order s since the order s

were interlocutory, and it appeared no final order o r judgment had been

entered. In response, the Hollingers maintained that once Dietrich’s three

motions in limine were granted , all claims and all parties were disposed of,J

- S39018

- 23

- 5

-

and all the underlying orders became appealable. See Letter in Response to

Rule to Show Cause, filed 2 / 8 /2 3 , at 2

. The Hollingers thus argue d that all the

appeals are from final orders and none are interlocutory. Id. On March 1 7

,

2023, the rule to show cause order was discharged, and the issue was referred

to this panel.

“The appealability of an order directly implicates the jurisdiction of the

court asked to review the order.” Bailey v. RAS Auto Body, Inc. , 85 A.3d

1064, 1067 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). This Court may “inquire at

any time, sua sponte , whether an order is appealable.” Id. at 1068 (citation

omitted).

“As a general rule, only final orders are appealable, and final orders are

defined as orders dispos ing of all claims and all parties.” In re Bridgeport

Fire Litigation , 51 A.3d 224, 229 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted); see

also Pa.R.A.P. 341 (b) ( stating a final order “dispos es of all claims and of all

parties”)

. “ Any order or other form of decision that adjudicates fewer than all

claims and all parties does not constitute a final order. ” Kovalchick v. B.J.’s

Wholesale Club , 774 A.2d 776 , 777 (Pa.Super. 2001) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 341 ).

Relevant here, “ [a] ruling on a motion in limine is not a final order. ” Id. (italics

removed).

Instantly

, the Hollingers argue that the orders granting Dietrich’s

motions in limine were final orders because they had the practical effect of

disposing the remaining claims and parties. However, the orders granting

Dietrich’s motions in limine were not dispositive

― they did not enter any finalJ

- S39018

- 23

- 6

-

judgment s in Dietrich’s favor nor make final determination s as to any specific

claim or party

. Rather, the orders simply precluded certain evidence , however

significant it might have been. As this Court pointed out in Liberty State

Bank v. N ortheastern Bank of Pennsylvania , 683 A.2d 889, 890

(Pa.Super. 1996) , “[w] hile the court ’ s grant of Appellee ’ s [m] otion in [l] imine

may have hampered Appellant ’ s presentation of its case, at that point it was

the responsibility of the parties to go forward with the case or for Appellee to

file a [m] otion for [s] ummary [j] udgment the grant of which would have led

to an appeal. ”

Further, there is no order on the docket striking the case from the trial

list. Thus, since there were no final orders entered by the trial court

, we la ck

jurisdiction. Accordingly, we quash the appeal s and remand this case for

further proceedings.

Appeals quashed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

This decision was reached prior to January 2, 2024 , with Judge McCaffery’s

participation.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 0 1 / 03 /202 4