Court Opinion

ID: 9704701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:43:41.872502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:04.550347
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring statement:
Although I agree that the order of the trial court must be affirmed, I reach that conclusion by reasoning different than that adopted by the majority.
On August 4, 1978, the lower court denied appellant’s petition for a rule to show cause why satisfaction should not be set aside and judgment opened. This is the order from which the present appeal has been taken. However, several months prior thereto, appellant had filed an identical petition, captioned a petition for a rule to show cause why judgment should not be opened. That petition was denied, and no appeal was taken. The order denying the petition to open was a final order because the petitioner was effectively precluded from pursuing the substantive issues alleged. Scharfman v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 234 Pa.Super. 563, 340 A.2d 539 (1975). Failure to appeal from this final order precluded appellant from seeking other redress in the court below. The prior order was res judicata. Brown v. Kleinfelter, 267 Pa.Super. 144, 406 A.2d 560 (1979).
*131Therefore, I concur in the result achieved by the majority and find it unnecessary to determine whether a satisfaction may be set aside for fraud occurring prior to entry of a judgment.