J-S01001-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

LYN A. FRY 

Appellant

v.

JOHN E. QUINLAN 

------------------------

JOHN E. QUINLAN

v.

LYN A. FRY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1325 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 25, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County 

Civil Division at No(s): 17-1244

 17-1245

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED JUNE 17, 2019

Lyn A. Fry (“Appellant”) appeals from an order of the Court of Common

Pleas of Centre County, which entered a verdict in favor of John E. Quinlan 

(“Appellee”) at two separate docket numbers.1 In accordance with our 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The trial court, at Docket Number 2017-1244, entered a verdict in favor of 

Appellee in no amount. In the same order, the trial court, at Docket Number 

2017-1245, entered a verdict in favor of Appellee in the amount of $1,000 

plus costs. See Trial Court Order, 7/9/18.
J-S01001-19

- 2 -

Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 

2018), we quash the appeal.

For purposes of this appeal, we need not provide an extensive factual 

history of the case. Further, the procedural history of the case is largely 

undisputed. This matter is a landlord-tenant dispute where Appellant filed a 

complaint in magisterial district court, and Appellee filed a counterclaim in the 

same court. 

Appellee filed an appeal from the magisterial district court’s judgment 

to the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County. Appellant filed the required 

complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, and both parties essentially renewed 

their respective claims.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing before a panel of arbitrators. 

At the scheduled time, Appellee appeared. However, neither Appellant nor 

her counsel appeared. 

By local rule, and pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 1303, the 

matter proceeded immediately to an ex parte bench trial before 

[the trial court]. [The trial court] presided at a brief hearing ... 

and entered an Order granting judgment against [Appellant] and 

in favor of [Appellee].

Appellant’s Brief, at 7-8 (citations omitted). Appellant filed her timely notice 

of appeal on August 8, 2018.

Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition to open the judgments. The court 

of common pleas entered an order noting that it no longer had jurisdiction to 

address the petition to open due to Appellant’s appeal. 
J-S01001-19

- 3 -

Before we can reach the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must address

the fact that Appellant filed a singular notice of appeal, even though there are 

two docket numbers present in this case. Moreover, the two docket numbers 

consist of wholly separate claims and distinct issues. Furthermore, each 

docket number features the parties in an inverted position from the other 

docket number.

2

The Official Note to Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure unequivocally indicates that: “[w]here ... one or more orders 

resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one 

judgment, separate notices of appeal must be filed.” Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official 

Note (emphasis added).

Historically, we have not quashed facially defective appeals (i.e., a 

single appeal from multiple orders or docket numbers) when “the issues 

involved are nearly identical, no objection to the appeal ha[d] been raised, 

and the period for appeal ha[d] expired.” K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863, 870 

(Pa. 2003). However, more recently, our Supreme Court in Commonwealth 

v. Walker construed Pa.R.A.P. 341 as “a bright-line mandatory instruction to 

practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” 185 A.3d at 976-77. 

Accordingly, “the proper practice under Rule 341(a) is to file separate appeals 

from an order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. The 

____________________________________________

2 The Appellant is the plaintiff at one docket number (2017-1244), but is the 

defendant at the other docket number (2017-1245). 
J-S01001-19

- 4 -

failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the appeal.” Id. at 977 

(emphasis added).

In its ruling, the Court in Walker mandated that this rule clarification 

was prospective only, identifying that “[t]he amendment to the Official Note 

to Rule 341 was contrary to decades of case law from [the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court] and the intermediate appellate courts that, while 

disapproving of the practice of failing to file multiple appeals, seldom quashed 

appeals as a result.” Id. Thus, concluded the Supreme Court, “in future cases 

Rule 341 will ... require that when a single order resolves issues arising on 

more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. 

The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Id. 

The Walker opinion was filed on June 1, 2018. Here, Appellant filed 

her singular notice of appeal, inclusive of two docket numbers, on August 8, 

2018. Appellant’s appeal unambiguously arises from an order that resolved

multiple issues pertaining to more than one lower court docket. As such, 

because Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed after Walker, in accordance 

with the dictates of Pa.R.A.P. 341, we must quash the appeal.

Even if we were to have jurisdiction over this appeal, we note that 

Appellant merely seeks a “remand with instruction to the trial court to examine 

[Appellant’s] Petition to Open Judgment.” See Appellant’s Brief, at 25. That 

issue is not properly before us at this juncture. We would therefore affirm the 

judgments and relinquish jurisdiction in the absence of the Walker defect.
J-S01001-19

- 5 -

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judge Murray joins the memorandum.

Judge Pellegrini files a dissenting memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 06/17/2019