In Re: Meyn, J., Appeal of: Humes, L. ( 2023 )

J-A29023-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN RE: JOSEPH MEYN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: LOIS A. HUMES :
:
:
:
:
: No. 207 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered January 20, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-MD-0004055-2022
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 11, 2023
Lois A. Humes appeals from an order vacating a prior order that granted
her motion for return of property. We vacate the challenged order.
Lois Humes and Joseph Meyn petitioned the trial court for return of
property on August 24, 2022, with an amended petition filed September 21,
2022. The trial court heard the matter and granted the motion on December
6, 2022.
On January 3, 2023, Christy Guyaux and Gary Guyaux moved to dismiss
the petition. On January 11, 2023, the Guyauxs moved to vacate the order
granting the petition. On January 19, 2023, the trial court heard the matter
and granted the Guyauxs’ motion to vacate the December 6 order.
On January 30, 2023, Humes and Meyn moved for reconsideration. The
Guyauxs filed a response on February 2, 2023. On February 10, 2023, the
trial court denied reconsideration. On February 13, 2023, Humes and Meyn
J-A29023-23
moved to strike the Guyeauxs’ motion. On February 17, 2023, Humes timely
appealed the order of January 19, 2023. Humes and the trial court complied
with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
In this appeal, Humes argues that the trial court lacked authority to
vacate the December 6 order more than thirty days after it was entered. See
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505. By statute: “Except as otherwise provided or prescribed
by law, a court upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order
within 30 days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any
term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or allowed.” Id.
The trial court agrees with Humes that on January 19, 2023, it lacked
jurisdiction to vacate its order from December 6, 2022. Trial Court Opinion,
7/11/23, at 5. Notably, all other parties in interest—Meyn, the Guyauxs, and
the Commonwealth—have not provided any argument to the contrary. Given
these facts, we follow the reasoning of the trial court and of Humes, and we
vacate the order entered January 19, 2023.
Order entered January 19, 2023, vacated. Case removed from
argument list.
DATE: 12/11/2023
-2-