Court Opinion

ID: 9881082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 17:09:34.898023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:02.152110
License: Public Domain

J-A15026-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  JACK L. ZAVILLA AND LUCY ZAVILLA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  STEVEN J. GEIBEL AND MARJORIE A.             :
  GEIBEL                                       :
                                               :   No. 1067 WDA 2022
                       Appellant               :

               Appeal from the Order Entered August 19, 2002
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Civil Division at No(s):
                              No. 2016-10790

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

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

       Steven J. Geibel and Marjorie A. Geibel (collectively, “the Geibels”)

appeal from the order entering judgment in favor of Jack L. Zavilla and Lucy

Zavilla (collectively, “the Zavillas”). Because the order appealed from did not

dispose of all claims, we quash this appeal.

       Given our disposition, we briefly summarize the facts of this case. This

matter arises from a dispute between neighbors over ownership of a small

piece of land (“Disputed Land”) in Butler County. The land west of the Disputed

Land is owned by the Geibels and the land east of the Disputed Land is owned

by the Zavillas. The Geibels acquired their property in April 2015 and began

farming on the Disputed Land. The Zavillas then put “no trespassing” signs on

the Disputed Land and claimed ownership of the land. This lawsuit followed.
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15026-23

The Zavillas brought an action against the Geibels asserting four causes of

action: ejectment, declaratory relief, trespass, and conversion of timber. The

Geibels filed counterclaims raising two causes of action: quiet title and

trespass.

      The parties submitted a stipulation of facts to the trial court. The court

found in favor of the Zavillas on their ejectment and declaratory judgment

claims, as well as on the Geibels’ quiet title and trespass counterclaims. The

court, however, did not make a ruling on the Zavillas’ claims for trespass and

conversion of timber. In its order entering judgment in favor of the Zavillas,

the court stated:

      This Order is hereby designated as a final order with respect to
      the property ownership question in this proceeding that is the
      focus of the [Zavillas’] Ejectment and Declaratory Judgment
      claims and as to the Quiet Title and Trespass Counterclaims . . .

      If no appeal is filed as to the contents of this Order within the
      timeline for such appeal, the parties shall confer and jointly
      request a Status Conference with the Court within forty-five (45)
      days of the date of this Order to address the procedure for
      disposition of any remaining claims in this action.

Trial Court Order, 8/18/22, at ¶¶ 4, 5.

      The Geibels filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order. On November

30, 2022, this Court issued a rule to show cause upon the Geibels to show

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

remained outstanding. In response, the Geibels acknowledged that the order

did not dispose of the Zavillas’ trespass and conversion of timber claims. See

Letter in Response to Rule to Show Cause, filed 12/14/22, at 1. However, they

                                     -2-
J-A15026-23

argued that those remaining claims were predicated on the Zavillas’ success

on appeal with respect to the declaratory judgment on ownership of the

Disputed Land. Id. The Geibels further argued that the court’s order expressed

an intent to certify the order for immediate appeal and that judicial economy

would be served by permitting the appeal to proceed. Id. at 2. On March 1,

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

to this panel.

      The Geibels raise the following issues:

      1. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or
         abused its discretion by determining that [the Geibels] failed
         to meet their burden of proof in stating that a subdivision did
         not determine property lines and ownership of any remaining
         parcel[?]

      2. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or
         abused its discretion by failing to give weight to [the Geibels’]
         assertion that their chain of title offered a clearer description
         of the property line to better define the land ownership interest
         of each part[?]

      3. Whether the lower [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or
         abused its discretion by attributing [the Geibels’] predecessors’
         lack of use of the Disputed [Land] as evidence that [the
         Zavillas] owned the Disputed [Land ?]

Geibels’ Br. at 5.

      We consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. “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).

                                      -3-
J-A15026-23

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

defined as orders disposing 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. Relevant here, subdivision (c) of Rule 341 provides:

      When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action,
      whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party
      claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the trial court or
      other government unit may enter a final order as to one or more
      but fewer than all of the claims and parties only upon an express
      determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate
      resolution of the entire case. Such an order becomes
      appealable when entered. In the absence of such a determination
      and entry of a final order, any order or other form of decision that
      adjudicates fewer than all the claims and parties shall not
      constitute a final order.

Pa.R.A.P. 341(c) (emphasis added). The Official Comment to Rule 341, states,

in relevant part:

      Subdivision (c) permits an immediate appeal from an order
      dismissing less than all claims or parties from a case only upon an
      express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate
      resolution of the entire case. Factors to be considered under
      subdivision (c) include, but are not limited to:

         (1) whether there is a significant relationship between
         adjudicated and unadjudicated claims;

         (2) whether there is a possibility that an appeal would be
         mooted by further developments;

         (3) whether there is a possibility that the court or
         government unit will consider issues a second time; and

         (4) whether an immediate appeal will enhance prospects of
         settlement.

Pa.R.A.P. 341, Comment.

                                     -4-
J-A15026-23

      A trial court “must consider all four factors when making a determination

of finality.” Bailey, 85 A.3d at 1069. After consideration of at least these four

factors, the court then must “make an express determination that an

immediate appeal will facilitate resolution of the entire case.” Id. “A

determination that an immediate appeal of a non-final order is appropriate

should be made only in the most extraordinary circumstances[.]” Robert H.

McKinney, Jr., Associates, Inc. v. Albright, 632 A.2d 937, 939 (Pa.Super.

1993). Absent language in the court’s order indicating that an immediate

appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case, we lack jurisdiction under

Rule 341(c). See Bailey, 85 A.3d at 1070; see also Stewart v. Nicosia,

946 A.2d 1103, 1106 (Pa.Super. 2008) (finding that although the trial court

designated its order as a final order pursuant to Rule 341(c), this Court lacked

jurisdiction because the trial court did not make an “express determination

that an appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case” (citation

omitted)).

      Here, it is undisputed that the court did not dispose of the Zavillas’

claims for trespass and conversion. Although the court may have intended to

make the order a final order, the court’s order did not include “an express

determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the

entire case,” as required by Rule 341(c). Further, there is no indication that

the court considered any of the factors necessary for a determination of

finality. See Bailey, 85 A.3d at 1068-70.

                                      -5-
J-A15026-23

      Therefore, because the order did not dispose of all claims and the court

did not make a determination of finality pursuant to Rule 341(c), the order is

not a final order and we lack jurisdiction to review it. Accordingly, we quash

the appeal and remand this case for further proceedings.

      Appeal quashed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/29/2023

                                    -6-