Fenster, I. v. Andover Realty Co.

J-S15018-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IRIS FENSTER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ANDOVER REALTY CO., THE ESTEE : No. 3311 EDA 2017
LAUDER COMPANIES., INC. AND :
ESTEE LAUDER, INC. :
Appeal from the Order September 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): December Term, 2015 No. 1478
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2018
Appellant, Iris Fenster, appeals from the September 13, 2017 Order
denying her Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and, in the alternative,
Reconsider the Motion for Summary Judgment. Because this appeal is
untimely, we are constrained to quash it.
The facts of this case are largely immaterial to our disposition. Briefly,
Appellant filed a Complaint against Appellees to recover damages allegedly
sustained as a result of a slip and fall on Appellees’ property. Following an
arbitration, Appellant received an award of $50,000, which Appellees appealed
to the trial court for a trial de novo.
While the matter was pending in the trial court, Appellant and Appellees
engaged in settlement discussions via telephone, and appeared to have
reached an agreement in principle. On March 31, 2017, Appellees’ counsel
J-S15018-18
emailed to Appellant’s counsel a summary of the settlement discussions and
requested confirmation of Appellant’s acceptance of the settlement for
$13,000 under a general release by close of business on March 31, 2017.
Appellant’s counsel never responded to Appellees’ counsel’s email and never
agreed to a general release. See generally Trial Ct. Op., 11/28/17, at 1-2.
Thus, the parties did not enter into a settlement agreement.1
On April 3, 2017, each Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Appellant did not file Responses to the Motions. On May 10, 2017, the trial
court granted Appellees’ Motions.
Appellant did not appeal from the May 10, 2017 Orders. Instead, almost
three months later, on July 28, 2017, Appellant filed a Petition to Enforce
Settlement Agreement and, in the alternative, to Reconsider the Motion for
Summary Judgment and Open the Judgment. Appellees filed a Response in
opposition to this Petition. On September 13, 2017, the trial court denied
Appellant’s Petition. Appellant filed the instant appeal.
Before reaching the merits of Appellant’s issues on appeal, we address
a question relating to our jurisdiction. An appeal may be taken as of right
from any final order of a court. Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). A final order is an order
that disposes of all claims and of all parties or is expressly defined as a final
order by rule or statute. Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). An order granting summary
judgment in favor of all defendants is an appealable final order as it disposes
____________________________________________
1 Because the parties did not enter into a settlement agreement, no such
agreement appears in the certified record.
-2-
J-S15018-18
of all claims and all parties. Thus, to be timely, an appellant must file an
appeal from an order granting summary judgment within 30 days of entry of
the order. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (“[T]he notice of appeal . . . shall be filed
within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.”).
The period for filing a timely appeal is not tolled by the filing of a motion for
reconsideration unless the motion for reconsideration is filed within 30 days
of the entry of the order and the trial court expressly grants reconsideration
within that same 30 period. Haines v. Jones, 830 A.2d 579, 583-84 (Pa.
Super. 2003). This Court is without jurisdiction to review the merits of the
issues raised in an untimely appeal. See Valley Forge Center Assoc. v.
Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245-46 (Pa. Super. 1997) (quashing appeal
for untimeliness).
Here, Appellant did not timely appeal from the trial court’s May 10, 2017
Orders granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Rather, Appellant
filed an untimely Motion for Reconsideration of those Orders almost three
months after their entry and a Petition to enforce a non-existent settlement
agreement. Because Appellant failed to timely appeal from the final Orders
granting summary judgment to Appellees, we quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed.
-3-
J-S15018-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/26/18
-4-