Vautar, R. v. First National v. Sakmar, M. ( 2015 )

J-A01011-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
RICHARD VAUTAR, AS ATTORNEY-IN- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
FACT FOR BERTHA VAUTAR, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Appellee
v.
THE ESTATE OF FRANCES SAKMAR, AND
MICHAEL SAKMAR AND EDWARD
SAKMAR, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE
ESTATE OF FRANCES SAKMAR,
Appellee
v.
MICHAEL SAKMAR, EDWARD SAKMAR,
AND EILEEN ATWOOD, INDIVIDUALLY,
Appellants No. 161 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment entered December 30, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County,
Civil Division, at No(s): 2009-01615
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE, and ALLEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 27, 2015
On November 8, 2007, Richard Vautar, as attorney-in-fact for his
mother, Bertha Vautar, (“Ms. Vautar”), initiated an action against First
National Bank of Pennsylvania, (“Bank”), alleging that Bank improperly paid
J-A01011-15
to Frances Sakmar, (“Decedent”), the total value of four certificates of
deposit which were owned by Jean Sojak, Ms. Vautar’s deceased sister, and
which were held in trust for Jean Sojak’s two sisters, Ms. Vautar and
Decedent. On January 28, 2008, Bank filed a third party complaint against
Decedent, who was later substituted by her estate and its co-executors,
Michael and Edward Sakmar, (collectively “Sakmar Defendants”). On August
16, 2010, Bank filed an amended third party complaint joining, in their
individual capacities, the heirs of Decedent’s estate, the Sakmar Defendants,
and Eileen Atwood (collectively “Appellants”).
On June 11, 2013, a non-jury trial commenced, which resumed to
conclusion on August 23, 2013. On September 5, 2013, the trial court
entered a verdict against Decedent’s estate and in Bank’s favor. On
September 16, 2013, Bank moved for post-trial relief seeking to amend the
verdict to include Appellants. On November 18, 2013, Appellants filed a
brief in opposition to Bank’s post-trial motion. On November 21, 2013, the
trial court heard arguments on Bank’s motion for post-trial relief. On
December 16, 2013, the trial court entered an amended/supplemental
verdict finding against Decedent’s estate and Appellants, and in favor of
Bank. On December 30, 2013, judgment was entered consistent with the
trial court’s December 16, 2013 amended/supplemental verdict. Appellants
did not file post-trial motions. On January 15, 2014, Appellants filed a
notice of appeal.
-2-
J-A01011-15
On February 19, 2014, this Court issued a per curiam order requiring
Appellants to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed due to
their failure to file post-trial motions pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 227.1, to which Appellants responded on March 4, 2014. Also on
March 4, 2014, Bank filed an application to quash this appeal due to
Appellants’ failure to file post-trial motions. On March 11, 2014, we
discharged our February 19, 2014 per curiam order. On March 24, 2014,
Appellants answered Bank’s application to quash arguing, inter alia, that
“Rule 227.1 … does not require post-trial motions to be filed following the
grant of another party’s post-trial motion.” Appellants’ Answer to [Bank’s]
Petition to Quash Appeal, 3/24/14, at 7. Appellants further argued that the
amended/supplemental verdict followed Bank’s post-trial motion, rather than
a trial, thus exempting Appellants from the purview of Rule 227.1. Id. at 8.
On March 24, 2014, the trial court issued a letter to our Court “defer[ring]
filing an opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
1925(a) pending resolution” of Bank’s application to quash.
Correspondence, 3/26/14, at 1. On April 17, 2014, this Court denied Bank’s
application to quash without prejudice to Bank to raise the issue before this
panel. After careful consideration, we grant Bank’s application to quash.
It is undisputed that Appellants did not comply with Pa.R.C.P. 227.1,
which provides in pertinent part:
Rule 227.1 Post-Trial Relief
(c) Post-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after
-3-
J-A01011-15
(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to
agree, or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or
(2) notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision in the
case of a trial without a jury.
Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c)(1)-(2) (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, a plain reading
of Rule 227.1(c) required Appellants to file post-trial motions to the
December 16, 2013 amended/supplemental verdict, which was the “the
decision in the case of a trial without a jury”, and pertained to Appellants in
their individual capacities, and from which they appeal. Appellants are not
relieved from Rule 227.1 because the amended/supplemental verdict was
entered following Bank’s post-trial motion and the arguments held in relation
thereto.
We recently emphasized:
[T]he filing of post-trial motions ... ensure[s] that the trial
judge has a chance to correct alleged trial errors. This
opportunity to correct alleged errors ... advances the orderly and
efficient use of our judicial resources. First, appellate courts will
not be required to expend time and energy reviewing points on
which no trial ruling has been made. Second, the trial court may
promptly correct the asserted error. With the issue properly
presented, the trial court is more likely to reach a satisfactory
result, thus obviating the need for appellate review on this issue.
Or if a new trial is necessary, it may be granted by the trial court
without subjecting both the litigants and the courts to the
expense and delay inherent in appellate review. Third, appellate
courts will be free to more expeditiously dispose of the issues
properly preserved for appeal....
D.L. Forrey & Associates, Inc. v. Fuel City Truck Stop, Inc., 71 A.3d
913, 919 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal citations omitted). In finding that the
appellant in Fuel City had waived its appellate issues, we observed:
-4-
J-A01011-15
Appellant in this case did not file any post-trial motions,
procedurally flawed or otherwise. Accordingly, Appellant's claims
of error are waived. Behar v. Frazier, 724 A.2d 943, 945 (Pa.
Super. 1999) (noting that “where the trial court has no post-trial
motion to consider as in Lane [Enterprises Inc. v. L.B. Foster
Company, 551 Pa. 306, 710 A.2d 54 (1998)], the parties have
not presented the trial court with issues to deal with in an
opinion and waiver occurs”).
Id., at 920. Accordingly, finding that Appellants failed to file post-trial
motions as required by Pa.R.C.P. 227.1, we quash the appeal.
Bank’s application to quash granted. Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judge Donohue joins the Memorandum.
P.J.E. Ford Elliott files a Dissenting Memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/27/2015
-5-