A.W.-B. v. T.C.B.

J. A24032/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
A.W.-B., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 1564 MDA 2017
:
T.C.B. :
Appeal from the Order Entered August 14, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Domestic Relations Division at No. 0724-SUPPORT-2012
BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 01, 2019
A.W.-B. appeals from the August 14, 2017 order entered by the Court
of Common Pleas of Cumberland County denying her petition to reopen
support action entirely pertaining to alimony pendente lite, spousal support,
and child support. For the following reasons, we quash appellant’s appeal as
untimely.
The trial court set forth the relevant procedural history:
Although this case originated [] in 2012, it has a long
and tortured history, comprising over 200 docket
entries, including nine petitions to modify, five
hearings before the support master and subsequent
master reports, and seven exceptions/cross-
exceptions. Of recent note, on October 26, 2016, [the
trial court] filed an [o]pinion denying [a]ppellant’s
Exceptions to the Support Master’s report of March 9,
2016. On March 10, 2017, less than five months after
that decision, [a]ppellant filed another petition for
modification. [The trial court] denied that petition for
J. A24032/18
modification on May 8, 2017, and [a]ppellant
appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On
August 3, 2017, the Superior Court quashed that
appeal as interlocutory. In the meantime, at this
same docket, [a]ppellant also filed a “Petition [to]
Reopen Support Matter Entirely” on August 2, 2017,
which was denied by [the trial court] on August 14,
2017. Appellant then filed an “Application for
Reconsideration of the Order dated August 14, 2017,”
which was denied by [the trial court] on
September 15, 2017. Appellant appealed that [o]rder
to the Superior Court, though she never served notice
on [the trial court]. On October 3, 2017, [the trial
court] [o]rdered [a]ppellant to file a concise
statement [of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)], which was also not
served on [the trial court].
Trial court opinion, 12/12/17 at 1.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30-day
deadline in which to file a notice of appeal. Indeed, “if the trial court does not
grant the motion for reconsideration before the expiration of the thirty days
in which the litigant can file a notice of appeal, the litigant will lose the right
to appeal.” M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058, 1060 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2014), citing
Pa.R.A.P. 1701; Orfield v. Weindel, 52 A.3d 275, 277 (Pa.Super. 2012).
Here, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court
did not grant within 30 days of the entry of the August 14, 2017 order.
Because appellant failed to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry
of the August 14, 2017 order, her appeal is untimely. Accordingly, we quash
appellant’s appeal as untimely.
-2-
J. A24032/18
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/1/2019
-3-