299 A.3d 1064
Pa. Commw. Ct.2023Background
- Goshen Valley III Condominium Association sued Marjorie and Laurie Messick after the Messicks’ garden-unit dog allegedly barked incessantly and disturbed multiple residents.
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction forbidding the Messicks from keeping that dog; they repeatedly violated the injunction and the court issued contempt/enforcement orders.
- The Association sought damages including attorney’s fees under the Uniform Condominium Act (68 Pa. C.S. § 3311(a)(3)) and submitted an attorney affidavit claiming $22,771 in fees and $403.75 in costs.
- On October 22, 2021, the parties submitted a Stipulation for Final Hearing (admitting the preliminary-hearing record) and the trial court entered a final non-jury order permanently enjoining the dog and awarding the Association $500 in attorney’s fees.
- The Association appealed the fee award, but the Messicks moved to quash the appeal because the Association did not file post-trial motions within 10 days as required by Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1(c).
- The Commonwealth Court granted the Application to Quash, holding (1) the October 22 order was a final non-jury verdict requiring post-trial motions to preserve appellate issues, (2) stipulations for final hearing are treated as trials for Rule 227.1 purposes, and (3) attorney’s fees under the Act are part of damages and therefore were part of the final verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be quashed for failing to file post-trial motions under Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1 | The Association argued post-trial motions were unnecessary because the October 22 proceeding was not a non-jury trial focused on new issues | The Messicks argued Rule 227.1 applied to the non-jury final order and the Association waived appellate issues by not filing timely post-trial motions | Appeal quashed for failure to file post-trial motions; issues waived |
| Whether a Stipulation for Final Hearing removes the need for post-trial motions | The Association contended the Stipulation meant there was no ‘‘trial’’ triggering Rule 227.1 | The Messicks argued stipulations submitted for final hearing are treated as trials and require post-trial motions to preserve issues | Stipulation treated like a trial; post-trial motions required |
| Whether attorney’s fees under the Uniform Condominium Act are a post-judgment matter not requiring inclusion in the final verdict | The Association claimed the fee determination was a secondary/post-trial matter distinct from the final verdict | The Messicks argued fees under §3311(a)(3) are a measure of damages and part of the final verdict | Fees are damages under the Act and must be included in the final verdict; thus preservation via post-trial motion was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pinkerton, 830 A.2d 958 (Pa. 2003) (orders after trials on stipulated facts are treated like other trials for post-trial motion purposes)
- L.B. Foster Co. v. Lane Enters., Inc., 710 A.2d 55 (Pa. 1998) (post-trial motions required to preserve issues for appeal)
- Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002) (Rule 227.1 is mandatory in law and equity; post-trial motions required to render trial court’s order final for appeal)
- Browne v. Dep’t of Transp., 843 A.2d 429 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (issues in post-trial motions must be briefed and argued to trial court to preserve them)
- Burrell Educ. Ass’n v. Burrell Sch. Dist., 674 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (only issues specifically raised in post-trial motions are preserved on appeal)