E. Chaney v. Fairmount Park Real Estate Corporation
155 A.3d 648
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Chaney bought property at a public auction in July 2006, paid deposits totaling $18,000, but financing fell through and his purchase was cancelled; deposits were forfeited.
- Chaney sued the auctioneer/real estate entities and owner; after hearings the trial court entered judgment in Chaney’s favor against Fairmount and HCFD; those defendants did not satisfy the judgment.
- Chaney petitioned the Court of Common Pleas (Feb. 2011) for payment from the Pennsylvania Real Estate Recovery Fund under Section 803 of the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act; the petition was denied in Oct. 2015 after evidentiary development on remand from this Court.
- Chaney filed a post-trial motion within 10 days of the Oct. 22, 2015 order; the trial court dismissed that motion in Dec. 2015 and Chaney appealed to the Commonwealth Court the same month.
- The Commonwealth Court treated the central question as procedural: whether post-trial motions were required or permissible for a statutory petition governed by the rules of petition practice (Pa. R.C.P. 206.1–206.7), and whether Chaney’s appeal was therefore timely.
- The court concluded the petition was governed exclusively by petition practice (not Rule 227.1 post-trial practice), Chaney’s post-trial motion was improper and did not toll the 30-day appeal period, and quashed the appeal as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-trial motions under Pa. R.C.P. 227.1 were required/permissible after the trial court’s order disposing of a petition for Fund recovery | Chaney: Because a hearing occurred (non-jury), Rule 227.1 required/allowed post-trial motions and those motions tolled the appeal period | Commission: Fund petitions are governed by petition practice (Pa. R.C.P. 206.1–206.7), which do not permit post-trial motions; appeal period was not tolled | Held: Petition practice governed; post-trial motions were not required or permissible and did not stay appeal period |
| Whether the trial court’s dismissal of Chaney’s post-trial motion produced an appealable order | Chaney: The Dec. dismissal was a ruling from which he could appeal | Commission: The post-trial motion was improper and dismissal is non-appealable or does not save timeliness | Held: The dismissal of an improperly filed post-trial motion is not a basis to cure an untimely appeal; appeal quashed |
| Whether law-of-the-case or prior remand required treating the matter as a trial subject to Rule 227.1 | Chaney: The remand and evidentiary hearing meant post-trial procedure applied | Commission: Prior remand held petition is a statutory petition governed by petition rules | Held: Law of the case supports petition-practice characterization; post-trial practice not applicable |
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear Chaney’s appeal given timing | Chaney: Appeal within 30 days of Dec. order denying his post-trial motion made appeal timely | Commission: Only the Oct. 22 order was the appealable order and Chaney failed to timely appeal it | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction because the timely appeal was not filed from the Oct. order; appeal quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Coco Bros., Inc. v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. of Sch. Dist. of Pittsburgh, 608 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1992) (statutory petitions governed by petition practice do not permit post-trial motions)
- Appeal of Borough of Churchill, 575 A.2d 550 (Pa. 1990) (discusses limits on post-trial practice in statutory proceedings)
- Oak Tree Condo. Ass’n v. Greene, 133 A.3d 113 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (appeal period and effect of post-trial motions)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (appellate-timeliness jurisdictional rule)
- Frempong v. City of Philadelphia, 865 A.2d 314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (improper post-trial motion does not stay appeal period)
- Thorn v. Newman, 538 A.2d 105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (order denying reconsideration is not appealable)
- Rachau, 670 A.2d 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (denial of motion for reconsideration dismissed as unreviewable)
- In re PP&L, Inc., 838 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (trial courts may accept post-trial practice when they find it helpful; appellate consequences when court rules on such motions)