Roush, F. v. Roush, F., Roush, F. v. Roush, F. No. 1697 WDA 2016

In 1989 Junior lent Senior money and received a deed transferring sole ownership of family farmland; Junior did not immediately record the deed and continued financing/leasing to his parents. In 2013 Junior recorded the 1989 deed amid a family dispute.
Senior sued (2014-1078) seeking an accounting and constructive trust; Junior filed a related suit (2015-1317) about missing/sold farm equipment and injunctive relief; the cases were consolidated for trial.
After a non-jury trial (Nov–Dec 2015), the court granted Junior’s compulsory nonsuit and dismissed Senior’s case with prejudice on Dec 29, 2015.
On Jan 7, 2016 Attorney Robert Colaizzi (who was not Senior’s trial counsel) filed timely post-trial motions; trial counsel Abood asserted those motions were unauthorized and they were withdrawn. Abood then filed a direct appeal; this Court quashed it as interlocutory because the trial court had not acted on post-trial motions.
Senior sought nunc pro tunc relief to reinstate post-trial motions (petition filed July 27, 2016). The trial court denied the petition (Aug 31, 2016) and later denied a motion to reinstate Colaizzi’s withdrawn post-trial motion (Oct 27, 2016). Senior appealed; Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reinstate/allow filing of post-trial motions nunc pro tunc	Senior: A timely post-trial motion was filed by Colaizzi and withdrawal occurred without Senior’s knowledge; extraordinary circumstances and non‑negligent conduct justify nunc pro tunc relief	Trial court/Junior: Colaizzi lacked authority; motion was withdrawn on the record; failure to preserve rights was due to counsel mistake and not extraordinary circumstances; appellee would be prejudiced	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion — Senior failed to show extraordinary circumstances, non‑negligent conduct, or other grounds for nunc pro tunc relief

D.L. Forrey & Associates, Inc. v. Fuel City Truck Stop, Inc., 71 A.3d 915 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for denial of nunc pro tunc relief)
Fischer v. UPMC Northwest, 34 A.3d 115 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (nunc pro tunc relief requires more than mere hardship; permits relief for extraordinary circumstances like fraud or court breakdown)
Lenhart v. Cigna Companies, 824 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (nunc pro tunc relief requires non‑negligent conduct and short delay without prejudice to appellee)