Dalessio, D. v. S & T Bank ( 2019 )

J -A14040-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DOUGLAS DALESSIO, INDIVIDUALLY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DALESSIO PENNSYLVANIA
FAMILY TRUST, DEVIN DALESSIO,
AND DYLAN DALESSIO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
BENEFICIARIES OF THE DALESSIO
FAMILY TRUST ,
Appellants
v.
S&T BANK, INDIVIDUALLY AND
TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS
S&T BANK WEALTH MANAGEMENT,
AND SAMUEL J. DALESSIO No. 1727 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered October 31, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County
Civil Division at No(s): 10771 CD 2018
BEFORE: OTT, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 22, 2019
Douglas Dalessio, individually and as Trustee of the Dalessio Family
Trust ("the Trust"), Devin Dalessio and Dylan Dalessio, individually and as
beneficiaries of the Dalessio Family Trust (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), appeal
from the Order sustaining the Preliminary Objections filed by S&T Bank,
individually and trading and doing business as S&T Wealth Management ("the
Bank"), and dismissing the Complaint as to the Bank. We quash the appeal.
On May 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a four -count Complaint against the Bank
and Samuel J. Dalessio ("Dalessio") alleging various causes of action. In
J -A14040-19
particular, Plaintiffs alleged that Dalessio tendered checks to the Bank, which
the Bank honored, even though the checks were endorsed to the Trust, and
not Dalessio. On May 25, 2018, the Bank filed Preliminary Objections to the
Complaint, to which Plaintiffs filed a Response. On October 31, 2018, the trial
court entered an Order that provided, in relevant part, as follows: "Defendant
S &T Bank's Preliminary Objections are SUSTAINED, and Plaintiffs' Complaint
is DISMISSED with respect to S & T Bank." Trial Court Order, 10/31/18
(emphasis in original). Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the instant timely appeal,
followed by a court -ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters
complained of on appeal.
Before we may entertain the merits of Plaintiffs' underlying claim, we
must first determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
See Commonwealth v. Davis, 176 A.3d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(recognizing that this Court may raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte).
Generally, "an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a ...
trial court." Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). A "final order" is defined, in relevant part, as
"any order that ... disposes of all claims and of all parties." Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)
(emphasis added). "[O]rders [sustaining] preliminary objections and
disposing of only some but not all of the underlying parties ... are interlocutory
and unappealable." Spuglio v. Cugini, 818 A.2d 1286, 1287 (Pa. Super.
2003).
-2
J -A14040-19
Here, the trial court's Order sustained the Bank's Preliminary Objections,
and dismissed the Complaint "with respect to S & T Bank." Trial Court Order,
10/31/18. Because the trial court did not dismiss the Complaint as to
Dalessio, the trial court's Order is interlocutory and not appealable. See
Spuglio, 818 A.2d at 1287. Consequently, we quash the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 7/22/2019
-3