Washington Square Partners v. Nadum

J-S07016-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
WASHINGTON SQUARE PARTNERS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
NADUM :
:
Appellant : No. 2517 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 10, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): December Term, 2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 29, 2018
Appellant, Nadum, appeals from the judgment entered in the
Philadelphia County Civil Court, in favor of Appellee, Washington Square
Partners (“WSP”). We vacate and remand.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
Appellant rented an apartment in Philadelphia from WSP beginning in October
2011. Appellant ceased paying rent in September 2015. WSP filed a complaint
in municipal court against Appellant on November 25, 2015, requesting
$5,954.78. That figure represented unpaid rent, electric bills, late fees, and
court costs. WSP also sought a judgment for possession of the property at
issue. Appellant responded by filing a counterclaim seeking abatement of the
rent, due to WSP’s alleged breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and
inflated electric charges. The municipal court entered judgment in favor of
WSP, and Appellant appealed to the court of common pleas.
J-S07016-18
WSP refiled its complaint. Following the denial of Appellant’s preliminary
objections, the case proceeded to a bench trial. Thereafter, the court issued
an order entering judgment in favor of Appellant, based on WSP’s failure to
enter into evidence a certificate of rental suitability and proof of service of a
Partners in Good Housing booklet. WSP responded by filing a motion for
reconsideration, in which it indicated that both items were attached to its filed
complaint. The court granted WSP’s motion for reconsideration, vacated its
previous order, and granted judgment in favor of WSP for $28,564.81.
Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration from that order. In it, he
requested the court vacate its order granting WSP’s motion, based on
Appellant’s assertion that WSP violated the implied warranty of habitability,
and for judgment to be entered in his favor. The court did not rule on
Appellant’s motion. Thereafter, he filed an appeal to this Court. Appellant
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). This timely appeal is now before us.
Preliminarily, we note the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion finds
Appellant’s issues waived for failure to file post-trial motions. We disagree.
Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1 requires a litigant file post-trial motions in
order to preserve issues for appellate review. Issues not raised in post-trial
motions are waived for appeal purposes. See Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B.
Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1998). “Post-trial motions serve an important
function in the adjudicatory process because they provide the trial court with
an opportunity to correct errors in its ruling and avert the need for appellate
-2-
J-S07016-18
review.” Board of Supervisors of Willistown Township v. Main Line
Gardens, Inc. 155 A.3d 39, 44 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted).
Post-trial motions and motions for reconsideration are not
interchangeable. See Karschner v. Karschner, 703 A.2d 61, 62 n. 1 (Pa.
Super. 1997). However, where a petitioner erroneously styles an otherwise
timely post-trial motion as a motion for reconsideration, we are not required
to find those issues waived on appeal. See Gemini Equipment Co. v.
Pennsy Supply, Inc., 595 A.2d 1211, 1214 (Pa. Super. 1991). “Both the
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize the
courts of common pleas and the appellate courts, respectively, to overlook
any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights
of the parties.” Vietri ex rel. Vietri v. Delaware Valley High School, 63
A.3d 1281, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). “We will not construe the rules of procedure so narrowly as to allow
a minor procedural error to affect the substantive rights of the litigants.” Id.(citations omitted).
Here, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the
court’s order, which granted WSP’s own motion for reconsideration and
ordered judgment entered in favor of WSP. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c)(1)
(directing post-trial motions to be filed within ten days of verdict). Appellant’s
motion avers WSP failed to introduce competent evidence that it cured its
breaches of the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code, and insists
Appellant’s rent withholding was a justified response to these breaches.
-3-
J-S07016-18
Appellant’s motion requests the court vacate the order granting WSP’s motion
for reconsideration, and instead enter judgment in his favor. Thus, it timely
preserved those issues Appellant wishes to appeal, in accordance with
Pa.R.C.P. 227.1.
However, the trial court did not rule on Appellant’s motion. Because the
court did not review its ruling, in accordance with the express purpose of post-
trial motions, we decline to evaluate Appellant’s issues now. The better course
here is to vacate the judgment and remand with the directive that the court
issue a ruling on Appellant’s motion.
Judgment vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/29/18
-4-