Court Opinion

ID: 9555979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 18:12:01.363033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:17.719280
License: Public Domain

J-A14025-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  DANIEL L. DUBECK AND STEPHANIE               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  DUBECK                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                       Appellants              :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 2628 EDA 2022
  FRANCIS DUBECK, JEFFREY DUBECK               :
  AND JOAN DUBECK                              :

              Appeal from the Order Dated September 9, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s):
                              2020-00809-RC

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                              FILED AUGUST 15, 2023

       Daniel and Stephanie Dubeck (“Appellants”) appeal from the Order

entered September 9, 2022, denying their petition for the leave to file a post-

trial motion nunc pro tunc.         The trial court found that Appellants had not

presented “extraordinary circumstances” to support their request.           After

careful review, we affirm.

       After a two-day bench trial in late June 2022, the court rendered a

verdict on July 27, 2022, finding in favor of Appellees, Francis, Joan, and

Jeffrey Dubeck, in Appellants’ ejectment action.1 The court also found in favor
____________________________________________

1 A broad overview of the underlying facts is the following: Appellees Francis

and Joan Dubeck agreed to transfer title by Deed of their residential property
to Appellants and within a year of the title transfer, Appellants were to have
obtained a mortgage of $400,000, the proceeds of which would be held by
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A14025-23

of Appellees on their counterclaim for rescission for lack of consideration and

directed Appellants to convey title by quitclaim deed and vacate the property

within 30 days. Appellants did not file a post-trial motion or praecipe the court

to enter judgment on the verdict.2

       On August 17, 2022, Appellants filed a notice of appeal. Appellants’

current counsel entered an appearance in the lower court on August 18, 2022.

On August 19, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellants to file a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) Statement.

       On August 25, 2022, Appellant filed an application for leave to file a

post-trial motion nunc pro tunc. On September 9, 2022, the trial court entered

an Order denying Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Post-Trial Motions Nunc

Pro Tunc.

____________________________________________

Appellees for their living expenses during their lives with the remainder of the
proceeds to be divided evenly between their two other sons, Appellant’s
brothers. Appellants also agreed that they would pay $30,000 of the
outstanding balance of the home equity loan within a year of the title transfer.
The intention of this arrangement was to sell the property to Appellants while
allowing Appellees to remain on the first floor of the house with a life estate.
After the title was transferred by Deed for $1.00, Appellees borrowed another
$30,000 to renovate the second floor for Appellants and their children.
Appellants did not provide any funds to Appellees as agreed and Appellants
refused to do so. Instead, Appellants filed an ejectment action against
Appellees.

2 Appellants did file a first notice of appeal from the verdict.
                                                               A verdict entered
after trial is not a final order; a judgment entered on the verdict is the final,
appealable order. Billig v. Skvarla, 853 A.2d 1042, 1048 (Pa. Super. 2004);
Davanzo v. Finelli, 437 A.2d 995, 996 (Pa. Super. 1981). Because the appeal
was interlocutory, the trial court maintained jurisdiction to entertain
Appellants application for leave to file a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc.

                                           -2-
J-A14025-23

        On October 4, 2022, Appellants filed a notice of appeal. They submitted

a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) Statement and the trial court responded by

directing our attention to its September 9, 2022 Order which explained its

reasons for denying Appellants’ request for leave to file a post-trial motion

nunc pro tunc.3

        Appellants raise one issue asserting that the trial court erred refusing to

grant them leave to file a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc. See Appellants’ Br.

at 4.

        In order to preserve issues for appeal, it is mandatory that parties file

post-trial motions. Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54,

54 (Pa. 1998); Pa.R.C.P. 227.1. Pursuant to Rule 227.1(c), post-trial motions

must be filed within 10 days of a verdict. “Our Court has consistently refused

to entertain appeals from orders or verdicts following nonjury trials in actions

at law when no post-trial motions have been filed.” Lenhart v. Cigna

Companies, 824 A.2d 1193, 1196 (Pa. Super. 2003). See, e.g., Krystal

Development Corp. v. Rose, 704 A.2d 1102, 1103 (Pa. Super. 1997)

(without post-trial motions after a nonjury trial, there are no issues preserved

for appellate review).

____________________________________________

3 After Appellants filed their October 4, 2022 notice of appeal, this Court
directed Appellants, via a Rule to Show Cause, to praecipe the lower court to
enter judgment. Appellants did so on January 11, 2023, and we discharged
the Rule to Show Cause, noting that the merits panel would determine the
propriety of this Appeal.

                                           -3-
J-A14025-23

      Where a party seeks leave to file a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc, “the

decision to allow the filing of a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc is vested in the

discretion of the trial court. We will not reverse unless the trial court abused

its discretion.” Lenhart, 824 A.2d at 1195.

      A trial court will grant permission to file a post-trial motion nunc pro

tunc only where there is a circumstance involving fraud or some breakdown

in the court’s operation. See D.L. Forrey & Assocs., Inc. v. Fuel City Truck

Stop, Inc., 71 A.3d 915, 921 (Pa. Super. 2013)(noting that “[a] court may

grant an appeal nunc pro tunc when a party shows that he/she was unable to

file the appropriate motion due to some extraordinary circumstances involving

fraud or some breakdown in the court's operation through a default of its

officers.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). “The grant of nunc

pro tunc relief is not designed to provide relief to parties whose counsel has

not followed proper procedure in preserving appellate rights.” Lenhart, 824

A.2d at 1197-98.

      Here, the trial court concluded that relief is not warranted. See Order,

9/9/22, at n.1. The court observed:

      Neither [Appellants’] Motion nor the Affidavit of Daniel Dubeck
      provide any explanation why [Appellants] failed to timely file their
      post-trial motions within ten days of the date of the [c]ourt’s
      decision. Boilerplate assertions, without more, cannot provide a
      basis for nunc pro tunc relief.

      By granting leave for [A[ppellants] to file nunc pro tunc, post-trial
      Motions, the [c]ourt may also be faced with having to grant an
      appeal, nunc pro tunc. The right to post-trial relief, nunc pro tunc,
      “is intended as a remedy to vindicate the right to an appeal where

                                      -4-
J-A14025-23

      the right has been lost due to certain extraordinary
      circumstances.” Union Electric Corporation v. Board of
      Property Assessment, Appeals & Review of Allegheny
      County, 746 A. 2d 581, 584 (Pa. 2000) (citation omitted).

      Generally, an appeal nunc pro tunc is only granted in civil cases
      where there was fraud or a breakdown in the court’s operations.
      Lee v. Guerin, 735 A.2d 1280, 1281 (Pa. Super. 1999) [ ].
      Here, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy this standard. Because a
      review of the record reveals that both of [Appellants’] trial
      attorneys each received notice of the filing of the [c]ourt’s decision
      of July 27, 2022[,] there appears to be no non-negligent reason
      why [Appellants] failed to timely file their post-trial motions within
      ten days of the July 27 Decision. Trial counsel’s failure to comply
      with the Rule of Court does not create a new basis for nunc pro
      tunc relief.

      After careful review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Appellants leave to file a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc.

As the trial court observed, Appellants did not present any evidence of an

extraordinary circumstance of fraud or a breakdown in the court’s

operations. In their brief, Appellants assert only that trial counsel did not file

the post-trial motion because they had not paid their outstanding fee. This is

not an extraordinary circumstance.

      Accordingly, we affirm the order denying leave to file a post-trial motion

nunc pro tunc.

      Order affirmed.

                                      -5-
J-A14025-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/15/2023

                          -6-