Haines, E. v. Hackenberg, L. & T.
887 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- Arbitration award entered November 20, 2014, in favor of Edwin C. Haines (ECHO) for $25,000 plus interest; prothonotary noted entry the same day.
- Rule 1308 required a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days of that docket notation (deadline here: December 22, 2014).
- Hackenberg’s counsel sent a notice of appeal via UPS Next Day Air on December 18, 2014; the prothonotary received it December 24, 2014 and returned it as untimely.
- Hackenberg filed a petition for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc on January 9, 2015; the trial court held a hearing and denied the petition on April 29, 2015.
- Hackenberg appealed; Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying nunc pro tunc relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying petition to appeal nunc pro tunc | Hackenberg argued counsel mailed appeal in time using UPS Next Day Air and delay was not negligent; equitable relief warranted | ECHO argued the late filing resulted from counsel’s negligence (failure to confirm delivery); no extraordinary circumstances | Court held no abuse of discretion: counsel’s failure to verify delivery was negligent; Criss controls — mailing delays foreseeable and avoidable; nunc pro tunc denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (establishes non-exhaustive test for nunc pro tunc relief where late filing results from non-negligent circumstances)
- Bass v. Commonwealth Bureau of Corr., 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979) (recognized limited exceptions permitting nunc pro tunc appeals)
- Nagy v. Best Home Servs., Inc., 829 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2003) (nunc pro tunc relief confined to extraordinary circumstances such as fraud or court breakdown)