*1 973A.2d Clavin, Individually and On Laura J. BASILE Sandra Situated, Appellees Similarly All Others Behalf of v. Services, Inc., BLOCK, INC.; Eastern Tax H & R Block H & R (BE) Association, Appellants. National Mellon Bank & Pennsylvania. Supreme Sept. Argued 2008.
Decided June *3 Lamb, Esq., H. McBride, Esq., William Murphy Maureen Jr., Esq., John Withers, Sargent, C. Esq., James Russel Scot McErlane, P.C., Ches- IV, Lamb West Esq., Cunningham, J. Tax Block Eastern Block, Inc., and H R. ter, R for H & & Services, Inc. Siebert, Pietragallo, Esq., Joshua Long, Esq.,
Louis C. Pennsylva- Gordon, Pittsburgh, Alfano, Raspanti, Bosick & Institute. nia Defense Coren, Esq., Levy Michael Esq., Angstreich, E.
Steven P.C., Coren, Phila- Rubenstein & Baldante Finney Angstreich all others herself and Basile, on behalf of for Sandra delphia, similarly situated. EAKIN, SAYLOR, CASTILLE, C.J.,
BEFORE: GREENSPAN, McCAFFERY, JJ. BAER, TODD, OPINION Justice GREENSPAN. Block,
We decide whether the H R Inc. Appellants, & and H R Services, & Block Eastern Tax Inc. referred (collectively “Block”), preserved properly right challenge their certifi- cation of represented by a class Appellee Basile. Sandra Here, the Superior Court held that Block its right waived seek decertification it not timely class because did certification, the order granting class though even Block won a later ultimately motion for summary judgment on the merits dispute. Our careful review of the facts and law reveals the Court erred and we therefore re- verse. 23, 1993, April
On Sandra J. Basile against filed a lawsuit Block, that, alleging among things, other Block breached its fiduciary duty connection with its “Rapid Refund™”pro- gram. The Refund Rapid program allowed individuals to receive their tax income refund days within after electronically filing their tax income return by receiving a short-term loan from Mellon Bank. Basile alleged Block thus deceived customers because the customers did not they know were receiving a short-term loan from Mellon Bank and the fees imposed by Block were actually extremely high interest rates on the short-term loan. Basile specifically alleged that she believed she received an expedited refund she because elec- tronically filed the return and was not aware it actually was short-term loan.
Basile sought certification aof class of with individuals *4 1996, 17, similar claims. January On the trial court entered that, an order for purposes of determining the class certifica- request, tion presume it would Block agent was an of any person 30, for whom it prepared May 1997, a tax return. On court, the trial 17, by relying January presump- 1996 order, granted tion class certification on the breach issue of fiduciary duty only. Block did not seek to file an immediate interlocutory Instead, this time.1 Block and the (regarding interlocutory 1. See appeals by permission). Pa.R.A.P. 1311 396 for sum- motions filed cross (Appellees) certified
newly 31, 1997, grant- trial court December On mary judgment. Appel- and denied judgment summary for motion ed Block’s held that The trial court judgment. summary for lees’ motion with relationship confidential or agency have an Block did not fiduciary therefore, was no breach there Appellees duty. trial court should claiming the appeal, filed an
Appellees because summary judgment their motion for granted have agency based on an fiduciary duty them a and/or Block owed 1998, 13, Block filed February relationship. On confidential 17, 1996 January trial court’s challenging cross-appeals, class certification 1997 May and the order presumption order. cross-appeal Block’s held Court Superior appeal,
On order was presumption January challenge to this objection presumption its failure to preserve waived for Inc., Block, 729 A.2d v. H & R the trial court. Basile order in also held that The Court Superior (Pa.Super.1999). Appellees. Block and existed between relationship agency confidential whether a not discuss Court did Superior Id. agency of an on the existence existed. Id. Based relationship of sum- grant reversed the Court Superior relationship, trial court. Id. the case to the and remanded mary judgment at 588. Court, to this allowance of petition
Block filed determination Superior Court’s seeking review granted This Court existed. relationship an agency that an holding erred that the Superior and held remanded case This Court relationship existed. agency relation- a confidential whether Court to address Superior Block, Inc., Pa. H R Basile v. & existed. ship remand, held that (2000). A.2d 1115 On confidential that a case prima established the record facie re- Appellees, Block and existed between relationship H R v. & trial court. Basile case back to the manded the court, In the trial Inc., Block, (Pa.Super.2001). Ill A.2d 95 class, which was a motion for decertification Block filed
397 20, granted on December 2003. The trial court ruled that individualized evidence was necessary to breach of a prove fiduciary based on a duty confidential relationship there- fore, the case could not be tried as a action. class
Appellees appeal filed an from the decertification order and 1, 2006, on March an en banc panel of the Superior Court reversed the Block, Inc., decertification. v. H Basile & R 894 A.2d 786 (Pa.Super.2006). The Superior Court held that Block had right waived its to challenge the class certification because it did not do so the first during appeal to the Superior Court 1998. Id. at 790. Block again petition filed a allowance of appeal 26, to this Court. 2006, On September by order, per curiam this granted allowance of appeal, vacated the Superior order, Court’s and remanded the case to the Superior Court with specific instructions to Penn- address sylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 501 and and relat- ed case law.2 remand,
On
the en banc Superior Court again did not reach
the merits of the trial court’s decision regarding class certifi-
cation but instead held only that Block had waived its chal-
lenge
Block, Inc.,
certification. Basile Hv. & R
926
A.2d
500 (Pa.Super.2007). This Court granted allowance
of
appeal March
2008 to determine whether the Superi-
or Court misapplied the aggrieved party doctrine by requiring
provides:
2. Rule
"Except
501
right
where the
appeal
enlarged by
of
is
statute, any party
order,
aggrieved by
who
appealable
an
or a
fiduciary whose
aggrieved,
estate or trust
may appeal
is so
therefrom.”
Pa.R.A.P. 501. Rule 511 was
provides:
amended in 2002 and now
timely filing
The
appeal
an
of
shall
any
extend the time for
other
party
appeal
903(b) (cross
to cross
as set forth in
appeals),
Rules
1113(b) (cross petitions
1512(a)(2)
appeal)
for allowance of
(cross
review).
petitions for
appeal by
discontinuance of an
party shall
right
appeal
not affect the
any
of
of
party regardless
other
parties
of whether the
are adverse.
amendments,
Pa.R.A.P. 511. Prior to the Rule 511 stated: “The
or, except
prescribed
903(b) (cross
discontinuance
appeals)
Rule
1113(b) (cross
petitions),
or
Rule
taking
appeal by
right
shall not
affect the
any
party.”
adverse
The Court
specified
also
Hospital
should address
&
Healthsystem
Dept.
Welfare,
Ass'n
Pa. v.
Public
585 Pa.
A.2d
Chrysler
(Pa.Su
Corp.,
Debbs v.
Block to in Block’s favor. was entered summary judgment though *6 its that Block waived holding Court’s Superior to only contrary is not the class certification right by undermined the record. but also Pennsylvania, the law of record this fifteen-year the extensive thorough A review of file Notices of Cross- Block did indeed case reveals that and, 17, 1996 order January presumption Appeal from 30, certification 1997 class May more from importantly, in the addition, those two issues In Block briefed order. Judge “that the Court reverse requested, Superior Court Order, 17, as well as the class certifi 1996 January Avellino’s 28, 30, Block’s 1998 May August issued 1997.” cation order given were cross-appeals apparently Brief at Block’s two numbers, in the appeared of which docket both separate Basile, 729 A.2d opinion. 1999 caption Superior Court’s only the cross- Superior at 574. But the Court addressed order as January presumption from the appeal stated, that the issue was waived. previously presumption held not address Block’s cross- Id. at 587. The Court did Superior 30,1997 certification order at all. Id.3 May of the class appeal addition, incorrectly Superior applied to file a required law that Block was Pennsylvania by holding Pennsylvania certification issue. on the class cross-appeal any “aggrieved 501 permits Rule of Procedure Appellate law also Pennsylvania recog to file an case party” appeal. earlier in a adversely rulings nizes that a affected party if that cross-appeal to file a required protective case is not favor; judgment in its party ultimately same wins a Hospital & Health- “aggrieved party.” winner is not See 585 Pa. Dept. Welfare, Pa. v. Public system Ass’n was not an (holding aggrieved A.2d 601 DPW cross-appeal point that Block did file a of the 3. We out the fact clarify lengthy complicated record part certification order may appear alone to correct in this case. While this clarification cross-appeal, denying Block’s reversal Superior Court’s error analysis Pennsylvania law requires a more detailed regarding cross-appeals. party, as the and it not need to file a party, prevailing did holding is further the Note cross-appeal).4 supported Our states, Pennsylvania Appellate Rule of Procedure which “An not be file a cross appellee required should issue, against the Court below ruled it on an as long because it judgment granted Appellee sought.” the relief Pa. Here, R.A.P. Note.5 Block was the prevailing ultimate the time of the 1998 it won its motion because summary the merits of class action. judgment As was not prevailing party, required it to file a protective certification, on the of class cross-appeal although issue it did.6 the Superior We also consider interpretation Court’s 1710(d).7 Basile, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure See Co., (Pa.Su- Transp. 4. See also Ins. Wilson v. 889 A.2d 577 n. 4 *7 ("As per.2005) party, prevailing [Appellee] 'aggrieved' the was not and therefore, standing appeal judgment did not have to entered in its favor.’’); 695, Wheeling Pittsburgh Corp., Ratti v. 758 A.2d Steel 700 ("Since (Pa.Super.2000) Appellant prevailing party was a in the court below, 501]."); ‘aggrieved’ meaning it is not within the Hasha- [Rule Bd., 276, Appeal (Pa. gen Comp. v. Workers' 758 277 n. 2 A.2d Commw.2000) (“[o]nly ‘aggrieved’ parties may appeal, Pa.R.A.P. prevails simply a aggrieved party and who is not an and has no (internal standing omitted). appeal.”) to citations assertion, Contrary Appellees' 5. to it is irrelevant Block's that case was prior commenced to the revision of Rule cursory 511 in 2002. Even a examination of the 2002 amendment to Rule 511 demonstrates that the change rule does not affect the case at Rule hand. 511 was not substantively changed except in language regard- that was added deadlines, ing filing regard which are not relevant With here. to the case, says exactly prior issues in this the rule itself almost what it said 2002. to addition, 6. In interlocutory the failure Block to file an appeal earlier by permission pursuant Pennsylvania Appellate to Rule of Procedure See, 1311 does not of the e.g., result waiver class certification issue. Jackson, Pa.Super. Commonwealth v. 409 A.2d (holding permissive interlocutory that failure to seek does not result in waiver because to find waiver would create a "self-contradic- tory (internal mandatory, permissive interlocutory appeal") citations omitted) (emphasis original). 1710(d) governs Rule provides decertification of class actions part: relevant (d) An may order rule under this be conditional before a merits, revoked, may decision on the be or altered amended court on any party. its own motion or on the Any motion of such 1710(d), can a class action Rule Pursuant at 501.
926 A.2d merits.” a decision on “before anytime be decertified 1710(d). “before interpreted Superior Court Pa.R.C.P. 1710(d) Block was mean that merits” in Rule on the decision trial to the certification prior the class required on the summary judgment on the motion ruling court’s Basile, A.2d at 501. fiduciary duty.8 breach of issue of correct, not apply it does generally is interpretation this While the grant earlier reversed had here where the trial matter to the remanded the summary judgment Basile, at 588. Once 729 A.2d proceedings. court for further the merits” and no “decision on there was that happened, upon revoke the class certification permitted trial court was 1710(d); Chrysler Debbs v. motion. See Pa.R.C.P. Block’s class that (holding (Pa.Super.2002) A.2d 187 Corp., 810 when after class certification years three could be decertified reversed on was plaintiffs verdict in favor jury was, no point, at that decision because there merits).9 addition, granting the order importantly, and most presumption was based on
certification in this case
This
parties.
relationship existed between
agency
accompanied by a memorandum of the
be
supplemental order shall
therefor.
reasons
1710(d).
Pa.R.C.P.
litigation,
point
in the
motion
Block at
8. A decertification
in written motions
immediately
opposing
class certification
after
necessary
simply
not
arguments,
have been futile and
would
*8
and oral
make
appeal. To so hold would
preserve the issue for
in order to
mandatory
preserve an issue for
in order to
for reconsideration
motions
v.
clearly
Northampton Convalescent Ctr.
They
not. See
appeal.
are
1038 n. 9
Welfare,
703 A.2d
Dept.
550 Pa.
Public
required
preserve an
is not
to
(noting
motion for reconsideration
that a
appeal).
for
issue
concurrence,
of Civil
Federal Rule
Saylor notes in his
Justice
As
"final
language
on the merits” to
the
"decision
Procedure 23 modified
However,
23(c)(1)(C).
Pennsylva-
the
judgment"
Fed.R.Civ.P.
in 2003.
precise
on the
this
"decision
still contain
nia Rules of Civil Procedure
such,
analysis
proper
is to conclude
language
merits”
deci-
summary judgment
revoked the
Superior Court’s reversal
for decertifica-
Block to file a motion
merits and allowed
sion on the
tion.
agency relationship
held that an
ultimately
did not exist.
Basile,
A.2d at
1121. Then the
Court held that a
Superior
instead,
relationship
thereby
confidential
existed
changing
within
the trial
legal context
which
court had made the initial
Basile,
class certification decision.
Here, Block lost may prehminary have its to challenge Appellees’ certification, motion for ultimately but it prevailed its on motion for on the summary judgment merits. We that the Superior incorrectly hold held that Block right waived its the class certification it challenge because did not seek immediate interlocutory review or file a cross- First, appeal. as stated previously, Block did indeed file a in the from cross-appeal Appellees’ summary addition, in its judgment favor. as the prevailing party, Block was not file a required protective appeal every adverse order interlocutory prior judg- entered summary ment to protect against order possibility that might summary reverse the judgment entered Therefore, in its favor. Block did not waive its Moreover, 1710(d), class certification. under Rule trial court was authorized to consider Block’s motion for decertifi- cation after summary judgment was reversed. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Superior Court and remand to Superior Court for a determination on the merits of the trial court’s decision the class. decertifying
Order reversed. relinquished. Jurisdiction Justice TODD and Justice McCAFFERY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Chief join Justice CASTILLE and Justice EAKIN opinion.
Justice SAYLOR files a concurring opinion.
Justice BAER files a concurring opinion.
402 SAYLOR, concurring.
Justice advocates, strongly amicus and their suggest, Appellants to file a cross- be permitted should not that a prevailing Appel Brief for See aggrievement. of due to the lack Defense Pennsylvania 11; for Amicus n. Brief lants at 26 Darlington, Kevin J. 4-16; G. Ronald at accord Institute Pennsyl Brown, W. McKeon, Daniel R. Schuckers & Kristen Appellate (2d A Supp.2004).1 ed. 511.4 § Practice vania courts, in that federal in the emerged has contrary position prevailing have permitted of appeals circuit courts several “to insure cross-appeals conditional protective, to file parties interests are cross-appellant’s] against [the errors any of in modification main results that if the reviewed so as well.” be determined will grievances his judgment Mort Lynch the Merrill Holders Trust Certificate 171, 173 Investors, 496 F.3d Funding Corp., Love Inc. v. gage 1459, 1465 (2d Cir.2007) 19 F.3d Duffey, Hartman v. (quoting (D.C.Cir.1994)).2 the current status observe Appellants Brief for point. uncertain on this See law is Pennsylvania at n. 11.3 Appellants supporting majority decision position, the initial basis
1. Under this specific cross-appeal in filing (relying upon Appellants' actual irrelevant, argument) be since response Appellees’ waiver would any light Appel- non-cognizable event in cross-appeal would be Moreover, question of whether prevailing parties. lants' status Opinion Majority at required cross-appeal, see Appellants were to file a 421-22, 398-400, summary in a be answered A.2d at also could at fashion. prudential into account appear to take considerations 2. These courts example, has ex- assessing reviewability. the Second Circuit For plained: technically part judgment should be of a Whether an issue that is not so, all, grounds a cross- for affirmance or on if as a addressed the issue may depend specifics of each case. Whether appeal, on the appellate for an ripe that the record is sufficient in the sense judicial time would conserve whether a decision at the decision and advancing proceeding will also differ by materially resources to case. from case Funding, at 175. Love 496 F.3d § 511.4 Compare Appellate Darlington, Pennsylvania al., Practice et aggrieved, ("Cross i.e., by parties who were not appeals petitions or cross below, Pennsyl consistently dismissed prevailed have been who vania."), Supervisors Wycko,758 A.2d Twp. v. Thomas Bd. with Saint that, ("We although party (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) ... would note *10 of the light manner which the present case has been review, framed for our and since the majority does not specifi- cally address the viability of a conditional cross-appeal I Pennsylvania, reserve own my final conclusions on the Here, matter for a future case. I express only my present inclination toward the position that such cross-appeals gener- ally should not permitted. be It that, balance, seems to me the collective burden of screening and addressing such cross- appeals may outweigh the benefits from the for an opportunity appellate court to advance the resolution of the litigation in individual cases.4
The parties also whether, discuss the question of where conditional cross-appeals filed, are the cross-appellants must raise all challenges they may wish to pursue with regard to any previous orders of the trial court on pain of waiver. The aggrievement inquiry a obviously threshold consideration to this question, therefore, and and in light of the majority’s disposition, I also decline to address this issue here. I note only that this waiver question appears to remain one, an open sought, basis, receives relief it albeit on an alternative that fact preclude alone would not successful filing protective from a cross on an it, issue which the lower against tribunal decided party choosing manner, i.e., and a proceed to in such filing a not
protective appeal, cross does so at the risk that the issue on which it prevailed reversed.”). below will be Court, however, 4. The which, should consider the scenario in but for disposition challenged by the appeal, litigation main otherwise Daniels, would be final. 38-39, Commonwealth v. 600 Pa. Cf. A.2d (overturning post-conviction court’s award of a trial, new followed consideration of an petitioner’s issue raised cross-appeal circumstances, claims). from that court's denial of all other In such hand, on the one it would seem to be a formulaic exercise to subject reverse the order to the main and return the matter pleas to the common court entry judgment, for an only to be hand, followed appeal. another On the other attempting recog- exceptions nize requirement present to the aggrievement may entail unavoidable concerning uncertainties where the line falls between permissible impermissible Therefore, cross-appeals. adherence to applying established routine may to all preferable cases be the course. Court, Certainly, acting through its rules-committee structure in the instance, first provide should strive to concerning any clear direction requirements new pertaining cross-appeals, parties should not subject be requirements. waiver absent such a relevant Thus, it is presently in the abstract. at least of a cross- evaluating option practitioners consideration appeal. Proce- of Civil treatment majority’s subject
theOn
of a
filing
actual
1710(d),
Appellants’
agree
I
Rule
dural
matter
to the class-certification
relative
cross-appeal
specific
I have a
arguments.5
Appellees’
undermines
substantially
however,
subsequent
difference,
majority’s
with
modest
on the
hinge
proposition
appears
which
analysis,
upon
to exist
the merits ceases
decision on
of a previous
fact
399-01, 973
Majority Opinion
See
appeal.
its vacatur on
way
conceptualiz-
one
certainly
this is
at 422-23. While
A.2d
approach
the federal courts’
prefer
I
application,
the rule’s
ing
*11
on the merits”
of the “decision
ambiguity
the
recognizing
Notes to the
23, Advisory Committee
rubric, see Fed.R.Civ.P.
reflecting
Amendments,
language
it with
replacing
and
to alteration or
is open
certification decision
the class
merits.6 Accord
decision on the
a final
pending
amendment
23(c)(1)(C).
6A Fed. Proc.
generally
See
L.Ed.
Fed.R.Civ.P.
their
(2008) (“District
to reassess
required
courts are
§ 12:293
inaccurately represented to the courts
consistently
Appellees have
and
5.
Judge Herron’s Order
any way
review of
not in
seek
that "Block did
against
Appellees at 9. Sub-
it.’’ Brief for
granting
certification
class
upon
expended based
public
have been
private and
resources
stantial
substantially com-
representation, and it has served to
this erroneous
litigation.
delay amassing
protracted
In
in this
pound the tremendous
circumstances,
expects
Court
better
I would admonish that this
such
litigants.
attorneys and
the
view,
class
a court to maintain
my
be untenable to force
6.
In
it would
if,
apparent after certification that
example, it became
for
treatment
unmanageable.
class was
that,
pleas
essentially
a common
court
position
virtue of
Appellees’
merits,
unrelated,
having
erroneous decision on
made some
appropriate
ability
deprived
to make otherwise
of its
court should be
Appellees
at 18.
adjustments
treatment. See Brief
to class
Procedure, however,
liberally
construed
are to be
Civil
Rules of
of actions. See
speedy
inexpensive determination
just,
and
secure the
advocating a literal
Appellees’ position
While
No. 126.
Pa.R.Civ.P.
1710(d)
ambiguity is
specious, I believe sufficient
reading
is not
of Rule
injustice that
inefficiencies and
justify
of the
present to
consideration
hamstrung by class
pleas
were to be
may
if
common
courts
arise
available to
courts have tools
I also note that
certification orders.
mechanism.
the decertification
redress abuses of
case
and to take
rulings
develops
cognizance
as the
situations,
changed factual
and
certification determination
any
subdivided,
modified,
may
expanded,
be
or
light
vacated
subsequent developments
litigation.”).7
case,
In the present
regardless of whether a
notice
separate
order,
lodged
was
relative to the class certification
of this
no
majority
determining
agency
decision
between
relationship
Appellants
Appellees
existed
and
under-
mined the basis on which class treatment had been permitted.
view,
my
In
this fundamental
prevailing
alteration
justified
circumstances
and consideration of a subse-
filing
court,
quent decertification motion in the common
with
pleas
or without a
to the
specific cross-appeal
class-certification
399-01,
at
Majority Opinion
order.8
973 A.2d
422-23.
Cf.
9,
light
majority’s response, Majority Opinion,
of the
see
at 400 n.
9, perhaps
Justice Court, reversing Superior the Majority Opinion, join I R Block did that H & conclusion Majority’s upon based the trial and that class certification its not waive following the class decertify authority court had judg- summary reversing eventual decision Superior Court’s protective Majority with the agree I Although ment. to second separately I write required, are not cross-appeals cross-appeals protective inclinations deem Saylor’s Justice 408-05, 424-25 A.2d at Concurring Op. impermissible. J.). I believe the However, Saylor, unlike Justice (Saylor, in this case. Given make that determination Court should R on H & holding its Superior premised cross-appeal, file a protective failure to alleged Block’s us, allow- squarely is before cross-appeals of protective issue necessity, well as of such validity, us to consider ing to our rules of according and bar for the bench appeals appellate procedure. a non-aggrieved I conclude that on Pa.R.A.P.
Based to file a required, let alone permitted, should not be party Five of our rules is Chapter appellate cross-appeal. protective appeals” take or may participate entitled “Persons who Pa. aggrieved party may appeal. that an provides Rule 501 other method of any The rules do not mention R.A.P. 501.1 Indeed, in Rule nothing take an having standing appeal. that a suggests non-aggrieved providing cross-appeals also our supported This conclusion is appeal.2 can party doctrine other aggrieved party for the longstanding respect circumstances, regard as fore- I do Court's decision not closing inquiry propriety of the certification. further into the entitled, full, "Any Aggrieved Party May Appeal," 1. In Pa.R.A.P. 501 statute, any right appeal enlarged by "Except is provides, where order, fiduciary aggrieved by appealable or a whose party who an may aggrieved, appeal therefrom.” or trust is so estate entitled, full, Appeals,” provides: Pa.R.A.P. "Cross any the time for other timely filing appeal shall extend 903(b) (cross appeals), appeal as set forth in Rules to cross 1512(a)(2) 1113(b) (cross appeal), petitions for allowance review). (cross of an petitions for The discontinuance any party regardless right other party shall not affect parties are adverse. of whether the *13 contexts: a person is not affected in adversely any “[W]here way by the matter he is not challenged, aggrieved and thus standing has no to obtain judicial a resolution that chal of lenge.” and Hospital Healthsystem Ass’n Pa. Dept. v. Welfare, (2005);
Public 585 Pa. A.2d see also Wm. Parking Garage, Penn Inc. City v. 464 Pa. Pittsburgh, 280-281 (plurality). A.2d
Moreover, refusing hear will protective cross-appeals streamline on appeal prevent cases prevailing parties from the courts deluging unnecessary with protective cross- appeals. Additionally, prohibition of protective cross- appeals eliminates the question whether a non-aggrieved party filing a protective cross-appeal every must raise poten- tial appealable note, issue for fear of waiver. I in closing, that to the permissive extent cross-appeals deluge would our courts, requiring every issue potential to be raised a non- aggrieved protective cross-appeal, waiver, pain would turn such into deluge full-fledged tsunami.
the Clerk of Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of 22, 2009.
June