Court Opinion

ID: 9770027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:13:30.720225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:48.687801
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stillwater Lakes Civic Association      :
and Stillwater Lakes Sewer              :
Corporation                             :
                                        :
      v.                                : No. 745 C.D. 2022
                                        :
Yasmin Escarfullery,                    :
                  Appellant             : Submitted: May 26, 2023

BEFORE:      HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
             HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
             HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE CEISLER                             FILED: August 29, 2023

      Currently before us is Appellant Yasmin Escarfullery’s (Escarfullery) appeal,
through which she challenges the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County’s
(Common Pleas) May 18, 2022 order that cancelled a previously scheduled statutory
arbitration hearing, as well as a default judgment that was subsequently entered
against her via praecipe on June 17, 2022. After thorough consideration, we quash
Escarfullery’s appeal, due to our lack of jurisdiction over this matter.
                                   I. Background
      On May 18, 2018, Appellees Stillwater Lakes Civic Association and
Stillwater Lakes Sewer Corporation (Civic Association and Sewer Corporation,
individually, and Stillwater, collectively) filed a seven-count Complaint against
Escarfullery in Common Pleas. Therein, Stillwater alleged that Escarfullery owned
a property located in the Civic Association’s subdivision and had failed to pay “dues,
assessments, sewer charges and other various charges in the [aggregate] amount of
Seventeen Thousand Eighty-Three Dollars and Seventy-Eight Cents ($17,083.78)”
that had been assessed against her property by the Civic Association and the Sewer
Corporation. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 1a-2a. Accordingly, Stillwater sought
monetary damages in that amount and “all future dues, assessments, and sewer
charges incurred through the time of trial,” as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and
interest. Id. at 4a-12a. Thereafter on December 2, 2021, Stillwater filed a Praecipe
for Arbitration. An arbitration hearing was then scheduled for January 11, 2022, but
was postponed multiple times by Common Pleas over the following months, due to
successive continuance requests made by the parties. See id. at 76a-103a.1
       Eventually, the hearing was rescheduled for May 20, 2022. Id. at 97a.
Escarfullery was unable to attend the hearing, but the parties nevertheless agreed to
proceed with the hearing on that date, with the understanding that the arbitration
panel would “enter a default award which could be appealed de novo [to Common
Pleas] for trial.” Id. at 128a; see id. at 116a (May 16, 2022 letter, in which
Escarfullery’s counsel advised Stillwater’s counsel that “my client is unable to
attend [the hearing and], therefore[,] we will take the default judgment in this
matter”). Common Pleas then issued an order on May 18, 2022, through which it
cancelled the arbitration hearing and directed Stillwater to file for default judgment
against Escarfullery within 30 days. Id. at 118a.
       Escarfullery responded by filing a Motion for Reconsideration on June 10,
2022, in which she requested that Common Pleas vacate its May 18, 2022 order,
because she had “agreed to take a default judgment for the arbitration only—not the

       1
         As reflected by the Reproduced Record, there were three continuance requests. The first
two were filed by Appellees, who asked for the continuances because of ongoing settlement
negotiations. The third one was filed by Appellant, who asked for the continuance because her
attorney had to attend to a personal matter. All three of these continuance requests were filed with
the consent of the opposing party or parties. See R.R. at 76a-103a.

                                                 2
[entire] case.” Id. at 104a-05a. This Motion for Reconsideration was not transmitted
to Common Pleas in a timely manner, due to an unexplained administrative
breakdown in Common Pleas’ Office of the Prothonotary, and was never adjudicated
by the lower court. Id. at 128a.2 On June 17, 2022, Stillwater filed a Praecipe for
Default Judgment and Assessment of Damages in Common Pleas, whereupon
Common Pleas’ prothonotary entered judgment against Escarfullery that same day
in the amount of $43,932.64. Id. at 111a-13a, 128a. This appeal to our Court
followed shortly thereafter.
                                        II. Discussion
       Under normal circumstances, we would now consider the substantive merits
of Escarfullery’s appellate arguments. However, we cannot do so in this instance
because we lack jurisdiction over this matter.3 With regard to Common Pleas’ May
18, 2022 order, it was neither final, collateral in nature, nor interlocutory and
appealable as of right. See Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)(1), 313, 341. Thus, we cannot currently
rule upon the merits of that order. Similarly, Stillwater’s default judgment is not
reviewable at this juncture. As we have explained in the past:
               Default judgments generally are governed by
               Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 237.1-237.6, 1037,
               Pa. [R.Civ.P.] 237.1-237.6, 1037, and are granted
               ministerially by prothonotaries and without judicial
               involvement. Gotwalt v. Dellinger, . . . 577 A.2d 623, 625
               ([Pa. Super.] 1990).

       2
          This was apparently due to Common Pleas’ belief that it lacked jurisdiction to do so when
it was finally made aware of the Motion’s existence, due to the fact that Appellant had already
filed the instant appeal. See R.R. at 128a-29a.

       3
         Though none of the parties have raised jurisdictional concerns, it is well settled that
“questions of jurisdiction can never be waived, and may be raised at any time by the parties or sua
sponte by an appellate court.” Pennhurst Med. Grp., P.C. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 796 A.2d 423,
425 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

                                                3
               Such judgments are not judicial orders and are not subject
               to an immediate appeal after their entry; rather, to obtain
               relief, the party against whom the judgment was entered
               may either file a petition to strike the default judgment or
               file a petition to open the default judgment. Mother’s
               Restaurant, Inc. v. Krystkiewicz, 861 A.2d 327, 336 (Pa.
               Super. 2004). Once a court of common pleas rules on one
               of these petitions, then the aggrieved party has a right to
               an appeal to higher court pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
               Appellate Procedure 311(a)(1), Pa. R.A.P. 311(a)(1)
               (granting an [interlocutory] appeal as of right from any
               “order refusing to open, vacate or strike off a judgment”).
Off. of Att’y Gen., Bureau of Consumer Prot. v. Lubisky, 88 A.3d 328, 333 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2014) (emphasis in original). Here, the default judgment that was entered
in this matter exists only as an administrative docket entry in response to Stillwater’s
praecipe and has yet to be the subject of an order that falls within the scope of
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(a)(1). As such, we lack jurisdiction
at this point in time to consider the propriety of either the May 18, 2022 order or the
subsequently entered default judgment.
                                        III. Conclusion
       In light of the foregoing, we quash Escarfullery’s appeal.4

                                                 ____________________________
                                                 ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

       4
           Our quashal of Escarfullery’s appeal does not affect Common Pleas’ authority to
adjudicate Escarfullery’s still-outstanding Motion for Reconsideration, or Escarfullery’s ability to
file a petition to open or strike the default judgment.

                                                 4
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stillwater Lakes Civic Association    :
and Stillwater Lakes Sewer            :
Corporation                           :
                                      :
      v.                              : No. 745 C.D. 2022
                                      :
Yasmin Escarfullery,                  :
                  Appellant           :

                                     ORDER

      AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that
Appellant Yasmin Escarfullery’s appeal is QUASHED, due to lack of jurisdiction.

                                        ____________________________
                                        ELLEN CEISLER, Judge