Newman Development Group of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardfs Family Markets, Inc.
52 A.3d 1233
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Rule 227.1(a)–(c) requires post-trial motions within ten days after a triggering event to preserve issues on appeal.
- The case concerns remand from the Superior Court after a damages decision, where the trial court recalculated damages without new evidence.
- Superior Court quashed the appeal, ruling waivers applied for failure to file a second round of post-trial motions.
- Appellants argued remand did not constitute a trial and thus did not trigger post-trial motion requirements.
- Trial on remand involved applying a lease-measure formula (Section 20.2.2) to calculate damages based on the existing record.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the remand damages recalculation was not a “trial” under Rule 227.1, vacated the quashal, and remanded for merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 227.1 require post-trial motions after remand damages recalculation with no new evidence? | Genuardi's: remand is not a trial; Lenhart applies; Cemiga supports no motion. | Newman: Rule 227.1 applies; remand constitutes post-trial proceedings; motions waived. | No; remand damages recalculation with no new evidence is not a trial requiring post-trial motions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lenhart v. Travelers Ins. Co., 408 Pa. Super. 1, 596 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 1991) (non-evidentiary remand not a trial; post-trial motions not required)
- Cemiga v. Mon Valley Speed Boat Club, 862 A.2d 1272 (Pa. Super. 2004) (remand with new findings; post-trial motions required where remand produced new findings)
- Warfield v. Shermer, 910 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2006) (post-trial motions required where remand involved new evidence)
- Hysong v. Lewicki, 931 A.2d 63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (post-trial motion required when remand includes new evidence)
- L.B. Foster Co. v. Lane Enterprises, Inc., 551 Pa. 307, 710 A.2d 55 (Pa. 1998) (waiver policy and issue preservation in appellate review)
- Chalkey v. Roush, 569 Pa. 462, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002) (purpose of Rule 227.1 to allow trial court correction and avoid appellate review)
- Cerniga v. Mon Valley Speed Boat Club, 862 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2004) (remand with new findings; post-trial motions governed by Rule 227.1)
- Diamond Reo Truck Co. v. Mid-Pacific Industries, 806 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2002) (post-trial relief and remand context in Pennsylvania appellate practice)