Brookside Apartments v. Heilman, M. ( 2015 )

J-A22033-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
BROOKSIDE APARTMENTS REALTY, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL HEILMAN AND KYLE HEILMAN
Appellants No. 83 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered December 18, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Civil Division at No(s): 2014-01069
BEFORE: BOWES, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 04, 2015
I respectfully dissent.
I agree with the learned majority’s analysis of all issues presented,
and its determination that all of Appellants’ issues are waived. I disagree,
however, with the majority’s decision to affirm the order on the merits.
As the majority correctly notes, a party must file post-trial motions at
the conclusion of trial in any type of civil action in order to preserve claims
that the party wishes to raise on appeal. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1.
“The purpose for Rule 227.1 is to provide the trial court
with an opportunity to correct errors in its ruling and avert
the need for appellate review.” [Chalkey v. Roush, 805
A.2d 491, 494 n.9 (Pa.2002)] “If an issue has not been
raised in a post-trial motion, it is waived for appeal
purposes.” L.B. Foster Co. v. Lane Enterprises, Inc.,
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A22033-15
710 A.2d 55 ([Pa.]1998). Accordingly, “our Court has
consistently quashed appeals from orders or verdicts
following non-jury trials when no post-trial motions were
filed.” Diamond Reo Truck Co. v. Mid–Pacific
Industries, Inc., 806 A.2d 423, 428 (Pa.Super.2002);
see also Cerniga v. Mon Valley Speed Boat Club, Inc.,
862 A.2d 1272 (Pa.Super.2004).
Warfield v. Shermer, 910 A.2d 734, 737 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied,
921 A.2d 497 (Pa.2007).
Here, Appellants did not file post-trial motions. Accordingly, I would
quash this appeal.
-2-