D.L. Forrey & Associates, Inc. v. Fuel City Truck Stop, Inc.
71 A.3d 915
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- D.L. sued Appellant for breach of a listing contract for Appellant’s Perry County property.
- The listing contract fixed a $2,100,000 price and an 8% broker’s fee, with additional fees if negotiations during the listing continued to closing.
- D.L. claimed it procured a ready, willing, and able buyer at list price; Appellant sold to Perry Petroleum Place, Inc. during/after the listing.
- Appellant answered and raised new matter; a non-jury trial occurred on April 10, 2012 resulting in judgment for D.L. in the amount of $144,000.
- Appellant did not file post-trial motions within the ten-day period; the court indicated Appellant would have 30 days to file post-trial motions and 30 days to appeal.
- Appellant sought nunc pro tunc relief in August 2012, which the trial court denied, and Appellant timely appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying nunc pro tunc post-trial motions. | Appellant argues equitable powers allow relief for extraordinary circumstances. | D.L. argues timely post-trial motions were required and waiver applies without extraordinary circumstances. | No; denied due to lack of extraordinary circumstances and waiver under Rule 227.1. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the extraordinary circumstances standard to permit nunc pro tunc relief. | Appellant claims leniency due to counsel’s good faith efforts and potential merit. | D.L. contends the standard requires extraordinary circumstances and lack of prejudice to D.L. | Yes; the court properly applied the standard and denied relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons t/a Knoebel’s Grove, 566 Pa. 593, 782 A.2d 996 (Pa. 2001) (post-trial issues waived if not raised; Rule 227.1 preserve review)
- Lenhart v. Cigna Companies, Inc., 824 A.2d 1193, 1196 (Pa. Super. 2003) (exercises equitable power when extraordinary circumstances exist; no abuse of discretion)
- Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 700 A.2d 465 (Pa. Super. 1997) (Rule 227.1 requires post-trial motions to preserve appellate review)
- Sahutsky v. Knoebel’s Grove (quoting Sahutsky with Metz), 782 A.2d 996 (Pa. 2001) (continues rationale for preserving issues via post-trial motions)
- Metz v. Commonwealth, 633 A.2d 125, 127 (Pa. 1993) (limits exceptions to procedural noncompliance)
- Kurtas v. Kurtas, 555 A.2d 804 (Pa. 1989) (discretion to entertain untimely post-trial relief)
- Benson v. Penn Central Transp. Co., 342 A.2d 393 (Pa. 1975) (purpose of post-trial motions to preserve appellate review)