63 A.3d 1281
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Appellant Vietri, a minor, appeals an order denying his Motion for Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc entered January 27, 2012.
- History: trial court granted summary judgment to Delaware Valley High School on August 3, 2010; June 8, 2011 stipulation of dismissal disposed of all defendants except Delaware Valley; June 17, 2011 post-trial motion filed; June 21, 2011 notice of appeal docketed (1676 EDA 2011).
- Superior Court questioned jurisdiction in August 2011 due to pending post-trial motions; the court quashed the first appeal on August 19, 2011.
- Trial court denied the still-pending post-trial motion on August 30, 2011; Vietri filed a second notice of appeal (2485 EDA 2011) on August 31, 2011 and the court granted a petition to quash on November 29, 2011 (without prejudice to nunc pro tunc relief).
- Appellant timely sought nunc pro tunc relief in the trial court in December 2011; the trial court denied it on January 30, 2012, and Vietri appealed.
- The Superior Court ultimately held the trial court abused its discretion, reversed, and directed restoration of Vietri’s right to appeal nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying nunc pro tunc relief | Vietri contends the post-trial motion was improvidently filed and the court should have granted nunc pro tunc relief to preserve appellate rights | Appellee argues the post-trial motion was improper and did not justify nunc pro tunc restoration; prejudice and fault lay with Vietri | Yes; the trial court abused its discretion and restoration was warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Elec. Corp. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, Appeals & Review of Allegheny Cty., 560 Pa. 481 (Pa. 2000) (nunc pro tunc relief limited to extraordinary circumstances)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. Super. 2001) (nonnegligent late filing and lack of prejudice support relief)
- In re Ware, 814 A.2d 725 (Pa. Super. 2002) (post-trial motions may be nullities; timing of appeals preserved)
- Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pinkerton, 830 A.2d 958 (Pa. 2003) (post-trial orders and exceptions are subject to post-trial procedures)
- Frempong, 865 A.2d 314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (treatment of infirm post-trial motions as reconsideration discussed)