M.O. v. R.O.
1309 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Parents divorced-ish? (married 1987) and have two minor children born 1999 and 2004; custody dispute after parents lived separately following Father's move to Michigan in 2013.
- Mother filed for custody on October 27, 2015, after various moves between Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania; trial court issued final custody order on March 17, 2016 granting Mother sole legal and primary physical custody.
- Prothonotary mailed Rule 236 notice of the March 17, 2016 order to both unrepresented parties on March 18, 2016; the notice was docketed March 21, 2016.
- The deadline to file an appeal was April 20, 2016 (30 days from entry/notification); Father dated his notice April 16, 2016 but the prothonotary time-stamp shows receipt and docketing on April 25, 2016.
- There was no record evidence of extraordinary circumstances (e.g., court breakdown or holiday) that would excuse the late filing.
- The Superior Court dismissed Father’s appeal as untimely for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father timely filed notice of appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) | Father’s notice was dated April 16, 2016 (within 30 days) | The notice was not filed until April 25, 2016 per prothonotary stamp, thus untimely | Untimely; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Rule 236 notice triggered the appeal period | Implied argument that dated signature should control filing date | Prothonotary’s stamped receipt and docket date control the appeal date per Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(3) | Prothonotary’s stamped date controls; appeal period triggered by mailed/docketed Rule 236 notice |
| Whether court may excuse late filing for extraordinary circumstances | Father did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances | No extraordinary circumstances shown to excuse late filing | No excuse; appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear untimely appeal |
| Whether appellate court can extend filing deadline | Father may have sought equitable relief | Appellate courts cannot extend the time for filing an appeal | Court cannot extend time; dismissal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 557 Pa. 618, 735 A.2d 113 (1999) (appeal period not triggered until order is entered on docket with required notice to parties)
- In re Adoption of W.R., 823 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (appellate courts may raise timeliness sua sponte because it implicates jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (absent fraud or court breakdown, appellate courts lack jurisdiction over untimely appeals)