Court Opinion

ID: 9754452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:01:07.288672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:53.624449
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination to reach the issue presented on this appeal.
This is an appeal from an order by the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County which states as follows:
Now, this 23rd day of August, 1985, it is the Order of this Court that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be and is hereby granted and judgment entered in favor of the Defendant and against Plaintiff.
The granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment is governed by Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035. This rule states in pertinent part:
(a) After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment on the pleadings and any deposition, answers to *395interrogatories, admissions on file and supporting affidavits.

Id.

While the official docket entries which were forwarded to this Court reveal an Affidavit In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment was filed on August 8, 1985 and An Answer to Motion For Summary Judgment was filed August 15, 1985, the docket entries are silent on the filing of a Motion For Summary Judgment.
So far as we are concerned, the record is “[t]he original papers and exhibits filed in the lower court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of the lower court----” Pa.R.A.P. 1921. We have examined these papers, and [appellees] Motion is not among them. Nor, may we add, is there any reference to the Motion in the docket entries. Therefore, we may not consider the Motion. In saying this, we are aware that appellants have printed as part of their Reproduced Record what purports to be [the] Motion____ But a paper not of record may not be made of record simply by reproducing it.
Pittsburgh’s Airport Motel v. Asphalt, 322 Pa.Super. 149, 152, 469 A.2d 226, 228 (1983) (Superior Court unable to consider motion for leave to amend complaint which was not filed in trial court).
Although the trial court opinion states “Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment____” (Trial Court Opinion at 2), “a fact cannot become of record by virtue of its inclusion in the trial court opinion.” Hatalowich v. Bednarski, 315 Pa.Super. 303, 306, 461 A.2d 1292, 1294 (1983). “Our refusal to formally recognize the existence of a motion in no way indicates that we discredit the word of the trial court____ We are simply constrained from taking cognizance of this motion having been made on the basis of the record before us.” Id.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926 provides, in part:
*396Correction or Modification of the Record
If any difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the lower court, the difference shall be submitted to and settled by that court after notice to the parties and opportunity for objection, and the record made to conform to the truth. If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident ... the appellate court ... of its own initiative may direct that the omission ... be corrected____
Our appellate courts have, on several occasions, remanded a case for an evidentiary hearing as to whether a motion had been made. Commonwealth v. Harbaugh, 253 Pa.Super. 24, 384 A.2d 957 (1978) (requesting points for charge); Commonwealth v. Walsh, 252 Pa.Super. Ill, 380 A.2d 1307 (1977) (post-verdict motions) Commonwealth v. Hobson, 481 Pa. 526, 393 A.2d 29 (1978) (motion for a change of venue).
In the interests of having this case decided on the basis of an accurate record, we follow that example. We remand the case before us for an evidentiary hearing, finding and potential supplementation to the record on whether or not a motion ... was made by appellee.
Hatalowich v. Bednarski, supra, 315 Pa.Super. at 306, 461 A.2d at 1294.
This court, in fact this very panel, in the case of Commonwealth v. Williams, 357 Pa.Super.-, 516 A.2d 352 (1986) refused to reach the merits of appellant's appeal because the record as certified did not contain notes of testimony from the trial court. I totally agreed with that decision and agree with the principle that if the record as supplied to the Appellate Court is not complete we should decline review.
Therefore, in my view the appropriate decision of this panel of this court at this time would be to either remand for completion of the record or dismiss the appeal for failure to have a complete record.