Estate of Boyer, D. v. Boyer, M. ( 2014 )

J-A29020-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY E. BOYER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CLIFFORD P. BOYER AND RUBY KAY : PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN, CO-EXECUTORS, AUDREY C. :
COOPER, JUDITH A. BOYER, CAROL :
R. MCCULLOUGH, JOSEPH G. BOYER, :
CLIFFORD P. BOYER, RUBY KAY :
JOHN, GRETA M. EDMONDS AND JILL :
R. JOHNSTON, :
:
Appellees :
:
v. :
:
MARK C. BOYER, :
:
Appellant : No. 77 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered December 18, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County
Civil Division at No(s): 883 CD 2012
BEFORE: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED OCTOBER 10, 2014
I agree with the Majority that Appellant waived all issues on appeal by
failing to file post-trial motions. However, in my view, under such
circumstances, this Court should not quash an appeal; rather, it should
affirm the order from which the appellant appeals. Consequently, I
respectfully dissent.
I acknowledge that this Court often quashes appeals when an
appellant waives all appellate issues by failing to file post-trial motions.
However, this Court also will affirm the order from which the appellant
appeals when the same oversight occurs. See, e.g., Treasure Lake
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A29020-14
Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Meyer, 832 A.2d 477 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(affirming an order where the appellants waived all issues for failing to file
post-trial motions following a trial based upon stipulated facts).
As I observed in Bronson v. Kerestes, 40 A.3d 1253, 1255 (Pa.
Super. 2012) (Strassburger, J., concurring and dissenting), our Supreme
Court has explained that “[q]uashal is usually appropriate where the order
below was unappealable, the appeal was untimely, or the Court otherwise
lacked jurisdiction[.]”1 Appellant’s failure to file post-trial motions results in
the waiver of all issues on appeal; it does not deprive this Court of
jurisdiction. Consequently, I believe the proper result in this case is to
affirm the trial court’s order. See, e.g., Greater Erie Indus.
Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (en banc) (affirming a trial court’s order where the appellant
waived all issues on appeal by failing timely to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement).
For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s order.
1
Appellant’s appeal arguably is premature, as the trial court’s decision was
not reduced to judgment. However, I agree with this Court’s policy to
overlook such a procedural misstep in order to promote judicial economy.
Randt v. Abex Corp., 671 A.2d 228, 230 (Pa. Super. 1996).
-2-