J-S65039-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

K.S.R., JR. 

Appellant

v.

A.M.F., K.M.F., D.A.F. 

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 

No. 1169 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered June 20, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at 

No(s): 2018-FC-40561, 

2018-FC-40707

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY COLINS, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 31, 2019

Appellant, K.S.R., Jr. (“Father”), appeals from the custody order dated 

June 20, 2019. We quash this appeal.

On April 25, 2018, Father filed a petition for custody of his child, K.R.R. 

(“Child”), at Docket Number 2018-FC-40561. On May 22, 2018, Child’s 

mother and maternal grandparents -- Appellees A.M.F., K.M.F., and D.A.F. --

filed a petition for custody of Child at Docket Number 2018-FC-40707. On 

February 15, 2019, the trial court consolidated both dockets. On June 20, 

2019, the trial court entered a custody order listing both docket numbers in 

the caption. On July 16, 2019, Father timely filed one notice of appeal listing 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S65039-19

- 2 -

both docket numbers. On August 19, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show 

cause why this appeal should not be quashed. On August 27, 2019, Appellant 

filed a response, acknowledging that he “filed one (1) Notice of Appeal to a 

final Order reflecting two (2) docket numbers which were completely 

consolidated without objection by the parties.” Memorandum In Opposition 

To Quashal Of Appeal, 8/27/2019, at 3 (not paginated).

The Official Note to Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Appellate Procedure provides in relevant part:

Where . . . one or more orders resolves issues arising on 

more than one docket or relating to more than one 

judgment, separate notices of appeals must be filed. 

Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. 

Super. 2007) (quashing appeal taken by single notice of 

appeal from order on remand for consideration under 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons’ judgments of sentence).

Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.

Until recently, it was common practice for courts of this 

Commonwealth to allow appeals to proceed, even if they failed to 

comply with Pa.R.A.P. 341.

While our Supreme Court recognized that the practice of 

appealing multiple orders in a single appeal is discouraged 

under Pa.R.A.P. 512 (joint appeals), it previously 

determined that “appellate courts have not generally 

quashed [such] appeals, provided that the issues involved 

are nearly identical, no objection to the appeal has been 

raised, and the period for appeal has expired.” K.H. v. J.R., 

826 A.2d 863, 870 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted).

In the Interest of: P.S., 158 A.3d 643, 648 (Pa. Super. 2017) 

(footnote omitted).

However, on June 1, 2018, our Supreme Court in 

[Commonwealth v.] Walker[, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018),] held 

that the practice violated Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 341, and the failure to file separate notices of appeal 
J-S65039-19

- 3 -

for separate dockets must result in quashal of the appeal. See 

Walker, 185 A.3d at 977. The Court stated unequivocally: “The 

Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line mandatory 

instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal. . . . 

The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the 

appeal.” Id. at 976-77.

Because the mandate in the Official Note was contrary to “decades 

of case law from this Court and the intermediate appellate courts,” 

the Walker Court announced that its holding would apply 

prospectively only. Id. at 977. Accordingly, Walker applies to 

appeals filed after June 1, 2018, the date Walker was filed. Id.

* * *

2 We recognize the harsh - perhaps draconian - consequence 

of quashing any appeal . . . However, our role as an 

intermediate appellate court is clear. “It is not the 

prerogative of an intermediate appellate court to enunciate 

new precepts of law or to expand existing legal doctrines. 

Such is a province reserved to the Supreme Court.” Moses 

v. T.N.T. Red Star Exp., 725 A.2d 792, 801 (Pa. Super. 

1999). It is well-settled that “the Superior Court is an error 

correcting court and we are obliged to apply the decisional 

law as determined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.” 

Commonwealth v. Montini, 712 A.2d 761, 769 (Pa. 

Super. 1998).

In re M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 980-81 & n.2 (Pa. Super. 2019).

Instantly, Appellant filed a single notice of appeal from the order listing 

two separate docket numbers. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on 

July 16, 2019, which postdates the Walker decision. Consequently, Walker

compels quashal of the current appeal.

Appeal quashed.
J-S65039-19

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/31/2019