Court Opinion

ID: 9753788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:29:00.381323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:42.301258
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Because neither party has objected to the jurisdiction of this Court, our jurisdiction has been *234perfected. Pa.R.A.P. 741(a). It is true, of course, that we nevertheless have discretion to decide the case on its merits or transfer it to Commonwealth Court. Pa.R.A.P. 752(a). However, I believe the interests of the parties would best be served by retaining jurisdiction and deciding the appeal on its merits. One of the issues raised on this appeal presents a question of pure contract law, i.e., whether all of the preconditions to payment of appellant on its subcontract have been satisfied. The statute of limitations, issue, moreover, does not contain the potential for a novel interpretation of a legislatively adopted statute of limitations. The resolution of the issue depends upon a relatively straightforward, factual determination regarding the lapse of time; and our sole responsibility is to determine whether the facts found by the trial court are supported by the evidence.
I would retain jurisdiction and decide the appeal on its merits.