Court Opinion

ID: 9881115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 17:09:50.597036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:03.696548
License: Public Domain

J-A15019-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  CHRISTINE BIROS, AN INDIVIDUAL               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  AMERICAN HARNESS TRACKS, LLC.,               :   No. 1219 WDA 2022
  A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY             :
  COMPANY, CHARLES J. LONG, JR.,               :
  AN INDIVIDUAL, EDWARD LONG, AN               :
  INDIVIDUAL, JAMES CARNA, AN                  :
  INDIVIDUAL, CHARLES NANNICOLA,               :
  AN INDIVIDUAL, ARMAND                        :
  NANNICOLA, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND                :
  FRANK NANNICOLA, JR., AN                     :
  INDIVIDUAL                                   :

             Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Civil Division at
                          No(s): 70066-2022 MD

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                       FILED: September 29, 2023

       Christine Biros appeals from the order denying her relief from an order

striking her lis pendens on a parcel of land in Lawrence County. Biros argues

title to the property is implicated by her litigation in Allegheny County. We

remand for the trial court to determine when Biros received notice of the order

directing her to file a statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

       Biros filed a praecipe for a lis pendens in Lawrence County, asserting

that title to a parcel of land was subject to her pending litigation in Allegheny
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15019-23

County. That suit is against American Harness Tracks, LLC (“AHT”) and its

individual members (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants moved to strike

the lis pendens. After Biros’s counsel failed to appear for a hearing on the

motion to strike, the trial court entered an order on June 9, 2022, striking the

lis pendens.

      Biros moved for reconsideration, claiming that counsel had been unable

to appear for the hearing due to a scheduling conflict. The court entered an

order on June 23, 2022, stating, “[U]pon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration of defendant’s Motion to Strike Lis Pendens, said Motion is

GRANTED.” Order, 6/23/23, at 1.

      The court then held a second hearing on the motion to strike. Afterward,

it entered an order, on September 19, 2022, stating, “the Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration is denied,” and again striking the lis pendens. Order, 9/19/22,

at 1. The court issued an accompanying opinion addressing the merits of the

issue. In short, it found that Biros had sued AHT to determine her ownership

rights in the company and whether she had been inappropriately disassociated

from membership. Trial Court Opinion, 9/19/22, at 3. However, the court

found that the owner of the Lawrence County property subject to the lis

pendens was not AHT, but rather a separate entity — AHT Land, LP — and

therefore Biros’s suit against AHT did not involve title to the property. Id. at

5.

      Biros appealed from the September 19 order. In a per curiam order, this

Court quashed the appeal sua sponte, as it appeared that Biros had appealed

                                     -2-
J-A15019-23

from an order denying a motion for reconsideration. Biros applied for

reconsideration, and this Court reinstated the appeal.

      The trial court ordered Biros to file a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors.

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). According to the docket entry and final page of the

Rule 1925(b) order, the court provided notice of the order to counsel, pursuant

to Rule 236, on October 19, 2022. See Rule 1925(b) Order, 10/19/22, at 3;

Trial Court Docket Entry #10; Pa.R.C.P. 236.

      Biros failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement by the deadline stated in

the order. The court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion stating that Biros had

waived all issues, and that the court’s opinion on the merits had been

expressed in its September 19 order.

      This Court issued a rule to show cause as to why we should not quash

the appeal based on Rule 1925(b) waiver. Biros’s counsel responded, in a

signed letter, that he had not received notice of the order for a Rule 1925(b)

statement until he had received a copy of the trial court’s Rule 1925(a)

opinion. Counsel asserted he “was, at all times, ready to file a 1925 Statement

in the event the trial court requested it.” Response to Rule to Show Cause,

1/29/23, at 1. Counsel claimed he filed a Rule 1925(b) statement the day

after he received notice of the court’s opinion. He attached a copy of the Rule

1925(b) statement and the trial court docket showing that he filed the

statement shortly after the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

      Counsel further explained that he asked the court why he had not

received a copy of the Rule 1925(b) order and was informed that the

                                     -3-
J-A15019-23

prothonotary sends notice of orders via first class mail and does not use

certified or registered mail or e-mail to ensure delivery. According to Counsel,

“The trial court relied on the Prothonotary to mail the notice and relied on the

United States Postal Service to deliver the mail. For reasons unknown,

appellant’s counsel did not receive the trial court’s order.” Id. at 2.

      Counsel also argued that Rule 1925(b) only requires an appellant to file

a statement when ordered by the trial court and does not otherwise impose

any specific timeframe for filing a statement. Counsel further argued that no

prejudice resulted from the untimely filing, as Biros’s Rule 1925(b) statement

raised issues identical to those in the appellate docketing statement Counsel

served upon opposing counsel, before the Rule 1925(b) deadline had passed,

and because the trial court had relied on its previous order for its Rule 1925(a)

opinion.

      This Court discharged the Rule to Show Cause but advised the parties

that the issue may be revisited by the panel.

      Biros raises one issue:

      Whether the trial court committed an error of law when it
      concluded that title to real estate was not sufficiently implicated
      and [Biros] was not entitled to a lis pendens where [Biros] filed a
      civil suit in which she alleged a personal interest in the oil, gas
      and mineral rights in the subject real estate pursuant to a Unit
      Purchase Agreement and an Investment Agreement with the
      parent company which is the sole partner and manager of the
      subsidiary which held title to the subject real estate.

Biros’s Br. at 4.

                                      -4-
J-A15019-23

      We must first address a jurisdictional matter. Defendants argue that we

should quash the appeal, as we had done previously, because Biros appealed

from the September 19 order stating that the court denied reconsideration,

and not the underlying June 9 order striking the lis pendens. Defendants argue

that the court’s order of June 23, while scheduling argument on Biros’s motion

for reconsideration, did not expressly grant reconsideration, and therefore did

not toll the appeal period. In the alternative, Defendants argue that if the June

23 order granted Biros’s motion for reconsideration and tolled the appeal

period, her appeal should nonetheless lie from the June 9 order, rather than

the September 19 order stating that it denied reconsideration.

      We previously granted Biros’s application for reconsideration and

reinstated her appeal, after having quashed it as being from an order granting

or denying reconsideration. See Order, filed 6/9/22 (citing Valentine v.

Wroten, 580 A.2d 757, 758 (Pa.Super. 1990)). It is therefore law of the case

that quashal is improper here.

      We again reaffirm that holding. It is true that an appeal does not lie

from an order granting or denying a motion for reconsideration. See Erie Ins.

Exch. v. Larrimore, 987 A.2d 732, 743 (Pa.Super. 2009); accord Thom v.

CDM Auto Sales, 221 A.3d 681, 683 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2019). However, when

a court enters an order expressly granting reconsideration of its prior order

within the 30-day time for filing a notice of appeal, this stays the appeal

                                      -5-
J-A15019-23

period.1 Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3); Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). The court need not vacate

the underlying order. K.T.R. v. L.S., 238 A.3d 478, 481 n.8 (Pa.Super. 2020).

Nor does the court need to render a final decision on reconsideration within

the appeal period, so long as it grants reconsideration within the appeal

period. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701 at Note. Then, “after the entry of the decision on

reconsideration,” the appeal period “begins to run anew . . . whether or not

that decision amounts to a reaffirmation of the prior determination of the trial

court[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3). A notice of appeal must be filed within the new

appeal period following the new decision, and it properly lies from that final

order. See Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155, 159 (Pa.Super.

2002) (finding appeal timely where appellant appealed from the order entered

after reconsideration had been granted).2

       Here, the court’s June 23 order unequivocally granted reconsideration

of its June 9 order striking the lis pendens. See Order, 6/23/23, at 1 (stating

____________________________________________

1 The trial court retains jurisdiction even if a notice of appeal has been filed

during the appeal period, as a timely order granting reconsideration renders
any notice of appeal inoperative. Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3); Pa. Prop. & Cas. Ins.
Guar. Ass’n v. State Farm Ins. Co., 853 A.2d 407, 409 (Pa.Super. 2004).
Conversely, if the trial court fails to act within 30 days of the entry of the order
that it has been asked to reconsider, it loses power to act on both the petition
for reconsideration and the original order. Gardner v. Consol. Rail Corp.,
100 A.3d 280, 283 (Pa.Super. 2014).

2 See also Getty v. Getty, 917 A.2d 869, 871 (Pa.Super. 2007) (quashing

appeal where appellant did not appeal from the order that both granted
reconsideration    and   constituted   court’s   substantive  decision     on
reconsideration); Penjerdel Refrigeration Corp. v. R.A.C.S., Inc., 442 A.2d
296, 298 (Pa.Super. 1982) (quashing appeal where appellant failed to file new
notice of appeal from order entered after reconsideration).

                                           -6-
J-A15019-23

the motion for reconsideration “is GRANTED”). The court entered the order

within 30 days of June 9. This stayed the appeal period and prolonged the trial

court’s jurisdiction over the matter.

      We also reject Defendants’ contention that the appeal was untimely.

Although the subsequent order of September 19 stated that “the Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reconsideration is denied,” Order, 9/19/22, at 1, the court had

already granted reconsideration and stayed the appeal period. Furthermore,

the September 19 order expressed that the court had, in fact, reconsidered

the issue on the merits and had decided to reaffirm its prior decision to strike

the   lis   pendens.   Therefore,   rather    than    denying   the   request   for

reconsideration,   the    September     19    order    denied   relief   following

reconsideration; this was “the entry of the decision on reconsideration” which

“amount[ed] to a reaffirmation of the prior determination of the trial court.”

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3). The 30-day appeal period then began anew. Id. Biros

appealed from the September 19 order within that period. This was proper,

and we therefore deny Defendants’ invitation to quash.

      We next address whether Biros waived all issues by failing to file a timely

Rule 1925(b) statement. To the extent this question is a question of law, our

review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249, 1252 (Pa. 2002).

      According to Rule 1925(b), the trial court may “enter” an order directing

the appellant to file a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal

within the deadline imposed by the court or risk waiver of all issues. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), (b)(2)(i), (b)(4)(vii); Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888

                                        -7-
J-A15019-23

A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). In civil matters, an order is “enter[ed]” when “the

clerk makes the notation in the docket that notice of entry of the order has

been given as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(b).” Pa.R.A.P. 108(b). In turn, Rule

236 requires the prothonotary of the trial court to give written notice of the

entry of an order and make a corresponding notation on the docket. Pa.R.C.P.

236(a)(2), (b). The note to Rule 236 explains that the Rule “does not prescribe

a particular method of giving notice. Methods of notice properly used by the

prothonotary include, but are not limited to, service via United States mail and

courthouse mail.” Pa.R.C.P. 236, Note.

      At the same time, “in determining whether an appellant has waived his

issues on appeal based on non-compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925, it is the trial

court’s order that triggers an appellant’s obligation under the rule[.]” Berg v.

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 6 A.3d 1002, 1007-08 (Pa. 2010) (plurality).

Consequently, there is no waiver where the appellant never received the Rule

1925(b) order. See Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 840 A.2d 326, 328

(Pa.Super. 2003) (en banc) (“if neither [the a]ppellant nor his counsel were

served with the order directing [the a]ppellant to file a 1925 statement, then

[the a]ppellant cannot be deemed to have been ‘ordered’ to file such a

statement and the failure to do so cannot then be a basis for finding waiver”);

Commonwealth v. Douglas, 835 A.2d 742, 745 (Pa.Super. 2003) (“waiver

may be excused if an appellant can demonstrate that he/she never received

proper notice of the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) order”).

                                     -8-
J-A15019-23

      Whether an appellant received notice of a Rule 1925(b) order implicates

a factual question, the resolution of which ordinarily would not be apparent on

the face of the record. Rule 1925(c) provides for remand for resolution of a

factual question regarding waiver. See Commonwealth v. Parrish, 224 A.3d

682, 692 (Pa. 2020). Under Subsection (c)(1), “An appellate court may

remand in either a civil or criminal case for a determination as to whether a

Statement had been filed and/or served or timely filed and/or served.”

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(1).

      We therefore remand this case to the trial court to conduct such

proceedings as it deems necessary to determine when Counsel received notice

of the court’s Rule 1925(b) order and, accordingly, whether Biros’s Rule

1925(b) statement was timely. See Commonwealth v. Chester, 163 A.3d

470, 472 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2017) (suggesting remand is appropriate remedy to

determine whether a 1925(b) order was served on appellant). The court must

transmit a supplemental record to this Court within 60 days. The court may

author a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion at its discretion.

      Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.

                                     -9-