Renzulli, G. v. Renzulli, F., 2514 EDA 2015

Background

Geraldine sued her son Frederick (Fred) and daughter-in-law Kristin in 2011 seeking to quiet title to 1830 East Passyunk Ave., alleging they held the property in constructive trust for her benefit.
After a non-jury trial in July 2012, the trial court entered judgment for Fred and Kristin and ordered Geraldine to vacate; this Court reversed and remanded, finding error on the constructive-trust issue.
On remand the trial court (March 13, 2015) vacated the prior judgment, entered judgment for Geraldine, and ordered the Defendants to convey title to Geraldine under a constructive trust.
Fred filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition seven days after the March 13 Order; Kristin did not file bankruptcy. The automatic stay issued by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
The Bankruptcy Court vacated the automatic stay on July 15, 2015 to allow Geraldine to enforce the state-court order. The Defendants filed their notice of appeal to the Superior Court on August 11, 2015 — 148 days after the March 13 Order and within 30 days of the bankruptcy court’s lift-of-stay order.
The Superior Court quashed the appeal as untimely, holding the bankruptcy filing did not toll the 30-day appeal period and that the Defendants had no title interest at the time of Fred’s bankruptcy filing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal from the March 13, 2015 order was timely	Renzulli (plaintiff) argued the appeal was untimely and divests appellate jurisdiction	Defendants argued the automatic bankruptcy stay prevented filing within 30 days and tolled the appeal period	Appeal untimely; Superior Court quashed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether Fred’s bankruptcy filing tolled or stayed the 30-day appeal period	Renzulli: automatic stay did not excuse failure to file timely appeal	Defendants: automatic stay prevented timely filing; filed within 30 days after stay was vacated	Bankruptcy filing does not toll the state appeal deadline; staying consequences do not excuse the missed deadline
Whether the automatic stay barred the Defendants from filing an appeal	Renzulli: §362(a) prevents certain actions against debtor but does not stop debtor from filing appeals or actions he could have taken before filing	Defendants: automatic stay blocked electronic filing; they attempted to file but were prevented	Court held §362(a) does not prohibit a debtor from filing an appeal and the stay did not justify missing the appeal deadline
Whether the debtor had a property interest subject to the automatic stay	Renzulli: under state law the Defendants lacked lawful title when Fred filed bankruptcy, so §362 protection did not apply	Defendants: contested ownership and relied on stay to preserve rights	Court held that because Defendants lacked legal title at filing, they could not shelter the property under bankruptcy protection

Key Cases Cited

Sass v. Amtrust Bank, 74 A.3d 1054 (Pa. Super. 2013) (untimely appeal divests appellate jurisdiction; narrow exceptions for breakdown/extenuating circumstances)
Lee v. Guerin, 735 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 1999) (timeliness of appeal basis for jurisdictional dismissal)
West Penn Power Co. v. Goddard, 333 A.2d 909 (Pa. 1975) (appeal period cannot be extended as a matter of grace)
Valley Forge Ctr. Assocs. v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. 1997) (strict construction of appeal period)
Borman v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 946 F.2d 1031 (3d Cir. 1991) (purpose and scope of the bankruptcy automatic stay)
Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2002) (no bankruptcy sheltering when debtor lacked property interest at filing)
Foulke v. Lavelle, 454 A.2d 56 (Pa. Super. 1982) (refusing to apply automatic stay where debtor divested of property interest before bankruptcy)
Temtex Prods., Inc. v. Kramer, 479 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. 1984) (similar holding on lack of property interest and stay protection)
Graziani v. Randolph, 856 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2004) (scope of automatic stay under §362(a) is a question of law)