Oak Tree Condominium Association v. J.R. Greene, Sr., 133 A.3d 113

Background

Oak Tree Condominium Association (Association) sought to set aside a sheriff’s sale of condominium unit at 112 D Clubhouse Drive following foreclosure sale conducted November 3, 2014.
Trial Court entered an order denying the Association’s request on February 9, 2015.
The Association filed a motion titled "post-trial relief" on February 20, 2015; the Trial Court scheduled a hearing and on April 10, 2015 concluded the filing was properly a motion for reconsideration under Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1(c).
The Trial Court held that because it had not expressly granted reconsideration within 30 days, it lacked jurisdiction to act on the motion and therefore the appeal period was not tolled; it alternatively denied reconsideration on the merits.
The Association appealed the Trial Court’s April 10, 2015 opinion; the Commonwealth Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Association neither filed a timely appeal from the February 9 order nor obtained an express grant of reconsideration to toll the appeal period.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 227.1 post-trial motion was proper to toll appeal following a non-trial order	Association argued post-trial relief under Rule 227.1 applied and tolled appeal period	Opposing parties and Trial Court argued no trial occurred so Rule 227.1 post-trial motion was improper and did not toll appeal	The court held Rule 227.1 post-trial motions apply to post-trial relief after a trial; because there was no trial, the filing was improper and did not toll the appeal period
Whether a motion styled as post-trial relief could be treated as a motion for reconsideration to toll the 30-day appeal period	Association relied on prior authority treating post-trial practice as tolling in bench-trial contexts	Trial Court and Commonwealth Court: a motion for reconsideration only tolls appeal if the trial court expressly grants reconsideration within 30 days	The court held the Trial Court did not expressly grant reconsideration; therefore the 30-day appeal period was not tolled and the court lost jurisdiction to act
Whether the Trial Court could retain jurisdiction to treat an untimely/ misstyled motion as post-trial relief	Association argued trial courts should be flexible and could treat filings as post-trial motions where appropriate	Opposing parties argued the 30-day period had elapsed and the court lacked jurisdiction to convert or act on the motion	The court held trial courts have discretion before the 30-day period ends, but once the period expires and reconsideration was not expressly granted the court lacks jurisdiction to treat the motion as post-trial relief
Whether the Commonwealth Court could hear an appeal from the Trial Court’s April 10, 2015 opinion denying reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction	Association appealed the April 10 order	Appellees argued April 10 order was non-appealable because it was not a final, appealable order changing the original February 9 order	The court quashed the appeal, treating the April 10 opinion as non-appealable where the Association failed to timely appeal the February 9 order or obtain an express tolling grant

Key Cases Cited

Centennial Station Condominium Ass'n v. Schaefer Co. Builders, 800 A.2d 379 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (discussing post-trial proceedings in bench-trial context)
Moore v. Moore, 634 A.2d 163 (Pa. 1993) (motion for reconsideration does not stay appeal period absent express grant)
In re Merrick's Estate, 247 A.2d 450 (Pa. 1968) (timely reconsideration request does not toll appeal statute without express grant)
Chalkey v. Rouse, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002) (post-trial motions mandatory to preserve issues after trial; appeal period tolled until disposition of such motions)
Lane Enters., Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1998) (same principle on post-trial motions tolling appeal period after trial)
Valley Forge Ctr. Assocs. v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. 1997) (an "express grant" of reconsideration is required to toll appeal period; routine scheduling does not suffice)
Kurtas v. Kurtas, 555 A.2d 804 (Pa. 1989) (trial court discretion to construe filings but limited by jurisdictional time limits)
Coco Bros., Inc. v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. of Sch. Dist. of Pittsburgh, 608 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1992) (Rule 227.1 limitations on post-trial relief)