Hosler, B. v. Tweedlie, G.

J-A09028-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
BENJAMIN D. HOSLER AND DAWN R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
HOSLER : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
GARY L. TWEEDLIE AND SUSAN M. :
TWEEDLIE : No. 2 MDA 2022
:
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order Entered December 2, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County Civil Division at No(s):
2016-00265
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: JULY 25, 2023
Appellants, Gary L. Tweedlie and Susan M. Tweedlie, husband and wife,
(collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the December 2, 2021 order entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County, denying Appellants’ motion
for post-trial relief. We remand this case with instructions.
A summary of the pertinent procedural posture is as follows. On June
29, 2021, the trial court, upon conclusion of a non-jury trial, issued a verdict
awarding judgment in favor of Benjamin D. Hosler and Dawn R. Hosler,
husband and wife, (collectively, “Hosler”) and against Appellants in the
amount of $49,879.87.1 In its June 29, 2021 verdict, the trial court “direct[ed]
____________________________________________
1 The verdict followed a complaint Hosler filed against Appellants, alleging
causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and a violation of the Real Estate
Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”), 68 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7301 - 7315, based upon
J-A09028-23
and order[ed] the prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of [Hosler] and
against [Appellants] in the amount of $49,879.87.” Trial Court Order, 6/29/21
(extraneous capitalization omitted). That same day, the prothonotary entered
judgment in favor of Hosler and against Appellants in the amount of
$49,879.87. See Trial Court Docket, at 6/29/21 Entry.
On July 9, 2021, Appellants filed a motion for post-trial relief seeking
judgment non obstante veredicto (“JNOV”). Appellants filed a brief in support
of their motion for post-trial relief on October 8, 2021. On November 22,
2021, Hosler filed a brief in opposition to Appellants’ motion for post-trial
relief. On December 2, 2021, the trial court denied Appellants’ request for
JNOV and “confirm[ed] its order entering judgment in favor of [Hosler] and
against [Appellants] in the amount of $49,879.87.” Trial Court Order, 12/2/21
(extraneous capitalization omitted). This appeal followed.2
Appellants raise the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion when there
was legally insufficient evidence for a verdict of breach of
contract as to [Appellants], where there was an express
contractual release upon waiver of inspection rights?
2. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion when there
was legally insufficient evidence for a verdict of fraud by
[Appellants]?
____________________________________________
the sale of real property by Appellants to Hosler. Trial Court Decision and
Order, 6/29/21, at 1, 4.
2 Both Appellants and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.
-2-
J-A09028-23
3. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion when it found
breach of an implied warranty of habitability without basis
in law or fact?
4. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by awarding
the trial demolition and replacement cost when the evidence
did not establish that demolition and replacement was
required?
5. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by awarding
attorney's fees, in absence of a recognized exception to the
American Rule?
Appellants’ Brief at 2 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
Preliminarily, we consider the procedural posture of the case sub judice
as it impacts our jurisdiction in this matter. Jenkins v. Robertson, 277 A.3d
1196, 1198 (Pa. Super. 2022) (stating, “this Court may raise the issue of its
jurisdiction sua sponte”). It is well-settled that an appeal may only be taken
upon entry of judgment because the order entering a verdict in favor of one
party is not a final order. Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Constr.
Corp., 657 A.2d 511, 514 (Pa. Super. 1995) (en banc) (stating, entry of
judgment is a prerequisite to exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction); see also
Reuter v. Citizens & Northern Bank, 599 A.2d 673, 676 (Pa. Super. 1991)
(stating, a “verdict in a non-jury trial is not appealable until the entry of
judgment on the verdict”). “In the absence of an entry of judgment, there is
no authority for this Court to review the merits of an appeal.” Ryan v. GAF
Corp., 665 A.2d 843, 844 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citation omitted). Where there
has been no entry of judgment, upon appeal, this Court may quash the appeal
-3-
J-A09028-23
or remand the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment. Id. (citations
omitted).
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 236, a prothonotary is
required to immediately give written notice of the entry of an order setting
forth the verdict in a non-jury trial to each party’s attorney of record or, if
unrepresented, to each party. Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(a)(2); see also Carr v.
Michuck, 234 A.3d 797, 805 (Pa. Super. 2020). The prothonotary is further
required to note on the docket the giving of notice. Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(b); see
also Carr, 234 A.3d at 805. Upon notice of the entry of such an order, a
party has 10 days in which to file a motion for post-trial relief.3 Pa.R.Civ.P.
227.1(c)(2).
For entry of judgment upon a verdict in a non-jury trial to occur, either
the trial court must order the entry of judgment, or a party must file a praecipe
for entry of judgment. See Progressive Home Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n
v. Kocak, 518 A.2d 808, 809 (Pa. Super. 1986) (stating that, if a trial court
orders the entry of judgment, the filing of a praecipe for entry of judgment is
unnecessary), appeal denied, 531 A.2d 781 (Pa. 1987); see also Pa.R.Civ.P.
227.4(2) (stating that, a prothonotary shall enter judgment upon praecipe of
a party if the trial court does not itself enter judgment or order the
prothonotary to do so). In either case, whether pursuant to an order of court
____________________________________________
3 A motion for post-trial relief replaces, inter alia, a motion for JNOV.
Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(a), Note.
-4-
J-A09028-23
or upon praecipe of a party, a prothonotary may not enter judgment on the
record until the expiration of the 10-day period in which to file a motion for
post-trial relief. See Jenkins, 277 A.3d at 1198 (stating that, entry of
judgment before the expiration of the 10-day period in which to file a motion
for post-trial relief is premature); see also Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.4(1)(a) (stating
that, upon praecipe of a party, a prothonotary may enter judgment if no
timely post-trial motion is filed).4 If a judgment is entered before the
expiration of the 10-day period, the judgment is void and of no legal effect.
Jenkins, 277 A.3d at 1198; see also Moore v. Quigley, 168 A.2d 334, 336
(Pa. 1961) (stating, “judgment, having been entered before the time for filing
a [motion for post-trial relief] expired, is void and of no legal effect”).
In the case sub judice, the trial court in its June 29, 2021 order entered
a verdict, awarding judgment in favor of Hosler in the amount of $49,879.87,
and directed the prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of Hosler and against
Appellants. Trial Court Order, 6/21/21. A review of the trial court docket
reveals that the verdict was entered on June 29, 2021, and the prothonotary
noted, the same day, that notice of the entry of the verdict was provided to
the parties pursuant to Rule 236. See Trial Court Docket, at 6/29/21 entry.
The trial court docket entry further reveals that the prothonotary
____________________________________________
4 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.4(1)(b) permits a prothonotary to
enter judgment upon praecipe of a party when a timely motion for post-trial
relief has been filed and the trial court has not entered an order disposing of
the motion within 120 days after the motion’s filing. Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.4(1)(b).
-5-
J-A09028-23
simultaneously entered judgment in favor of Hosler and against Appellants on
June 29, 2021. Id. (stating, “Judgment entered against [Appellants] in the
amount of $49,879.87.” (extraneous capitalization omitted)). On July 9,
2021, Appellants filed a timely motion for post-trial relief. The trial court
denied Appellants’ motion on December 2, 2021.
The entry of judgment on June 29, 2021, was premature because the
judgment was entered before the expiration of the 10-day period in which to
file a motion for post-trial relief. Jenkins, 277 A.3d at 1198. As such, the
June 29, 2021 entry of judgment is void and of no legal effect. Id. The record
further demonstrates that neither party filed a praecipe for entry of judgment,
and judgment was never entered by the prothonotary after the December 2,
2021 denial of Appellants’ motion for post-trial relief. Because judgment was
never entered outside the 10-day period in which to file a timely post-trial
motion, this Court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of Appellants’
issues. Ryan, 665 A.2d at 844.
We are cognizant, however, that the parties filed appellate briefs and
participated in oral argument before this Court. Under these circumstances,
and in the interest of judicial economy, we remand this case to the trial court
for the entry of judgment.5 Id. The trial court, upon remand, shall
____________________________________________
5 Because the trial court, in its June 29, 2021 order, directed the prothonotary
to enter judgment, the filing of a praecipe for entry of judgment by a party is
not necessary. Kocak, 518 A.2d at 809. The prothonotary, upon remand,
may immediately enter judgment pursuant to the June 29, 2021 order and
provide notice to the parties.
-6-
J-A09028-23
immediately enter judgment and provide notice to the parties pursuant to Rule
236. Thereafter, the certified record shall be returned to this Court within 45
days of the date of this memorandum.6
Case remanded. Jurisdiction retained.
____________________________________________
6 Once the trial court enters judgment thereby perfecting jurisdiction in this
Court, Appellants’ notice of appeal will be deemed filed as of the date
judgment is entered. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating, “A notice of appeal
filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an
appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day
thereof”). The parties do not need to file additional briefs with this Court.
-7-