Chalkey v. RoushChalkey v. Roush
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Flaherty
Lead Opinion
In this appeal, Appellant Mary Chalkey, a/k/a Mary Matula,1 аrgues that the Superior Court erred in holding that Appellee Franklin Delano Roush, Jr. did not waive his claims on appeal as a result of his failure to file post-trial motions with the trial court. While we find that pursuant to Rule 227.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are required to file post-trial motions from a trial court’s order following a trial in both actions at law and in equity in order to properly preserve issues that they wish to raise on appeal, we аlso find that this rule shall be applied prospectively only. Thus, we affirm the Superior Court’s order granting Roush relief in the instant case.
In April 1994, the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County entered a judgment of approximately $80,000.00 against Chalkey pursuant to an action brought by her brother’s estate seeking liquidation of a property interest that her brother shared with her. Attorney Rex W. McQuaide represented Chalkey in that action. McQuaide also assisted Chalkey in trying to securе the money to satisfy the judgment she owed to her brother’s estate. When Chalkey failed to satisfy the judgment by late 1995, a judgment creditor scheduled a sheriffs sale on December 8, 1995 for a large parcel of property owned by Chalkey.
In November 1995, Chalkey retained Roush to act as her attorney in an attempt to stay the scheduled sheriffs sale. Roush, acting on behalf of Chalkey, filed a motion for a stay of the sale, and on December 4, 1995, the trial court held a hеaring on the motion. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motion for a stay. Later that day, however, Chalkey
In October 1997, Chalkey filed an action in equity requesting that the trial court declare the sale of the parcel to Roush void and require Roush to account to her for any revеnue obtained from either a disposition of the property or a sale of timber from the property.2 Chalkey argued that Roush had exerted undue influence over her by using his position as her attorney to convince her to sell him the property for much less than its value. Furthermore, according to Chalkey, Roush was guilty of fraud and/or false pretenses because he led Chalkey to believe that he was merely loaning her the money in order to prevent the sheriffs sale.
On July 13, 1998, the trial court held a trial regarding the merits of Chalkey’s claims. At the close of the trial, the court incorporated the evidence from the previous proceedings, including the lengthy October 10th trial concerning the permanent injunction.3 See, n. 2, supra. On August 11, 1998, the trial court issued an opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically, the trial court determined that a confidential relationship existed between Roush and Chalkey and that Roush tоok unfair advantage of that relationship in order to obtain the property from Chalkey for less than its value. The trial court therefore found that the contract for the sale of the property should be voided based on the theory of undue influence4 and the parties should be returned to the positions they occupied before the transfer of the property. Accordingly, the trial court entered an order in which it declared the sale of thе property void, instructed Roush to transfer the property back to Chalkey, and directed Roush to pay Chalkey the sums he received from an agreement to sell timber that was located on the property.
Roush did not file post-trial motions in response to the trial court’s order. Rather, he immediately appealed from the order to the Superior Court. A three judge panel of the Superior Court, relying on this Court’s per curiam order in Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 551 Pa. 306, 710 A.2d 54 (1998), rev’g, 700 A.2d 465 (Pa.Super.1997), determined that the issues raised by Roush on appeal were waived because Roush failed to raise them in post-trial motions. Roush filed a Petition for Reargument, which the Superior Court granted, and the case was reargued before an en banc panel of the Superior Court. Following argument, a majority of the Superior Court determined that because the trial court did not enter a decree nisi pursuant to Rule 1517(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure,5 Roush did not waive
In 1984, this Court rescinded Rules 1518 and 1519 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which governed the procedures for post-trial relief in an equity action,8 and adopted Rules 227.1 through 227.4 to establish uniform procedures for post-trial relief in actions at law and equity, and actions tried with or without a jury. See
(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to agree, or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or
(2) notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision or adjudication in the case of a trial without jury or equity trial.
(1) order a new trial as to all or any of the issues; or
(2) direct the entry of judgment in favor of any party; or
(3) remove a nonsuit; or
(4) affirm, modify or change the decision or decree nisi; or
(5) enter any other appropriate order.
In the instant case, the Superior Court recognized that both Rule 227.1 and Lane Enterprises mandate that a party file post-trial motions from a trial court’s decision and order following the conclusion of a trial. Nonetheless, relying on several of this Court’s previous decisions, the Superior Court determined that in an action at equity, a party may be excused from filing post-trial motions where the trial court entered an order that failed to comply with the requirements for an adjudication listed in Rule 1517(a) and thus, appeared to be final and subject to immediate appeal. See Commonwealth v. Derry Township, 466 Pa. 31, 351 A.2d 606 (1976) (appellant’s claims not waived as it cannot be presumed that appellant knеw that he had to file exceptions to preserve his right to appeal where the trial court’s adjudication neither comports with the requirements of Rule 1517(a) nor indicates that it is a decree nisi); Community Sports, Inc. v. Oakland Oaks, 429 Pa. 412, 240 A.2d 491 (1968) (excusing appellants’ failure to file exceptions because they may have justifiably relied on chancellor’s statement that no decree nisi would be filed).11 We disagree that such an excuse remains permissible under Rule 227.1.
Community Sports, Derry Township, and the other decisions of this Court that the Superior Court relied upon below, were all decided under Rule 1517, in conjunction
Moreover, just as we found that there was no excuse for a party’s failure to file pоst-trial motions from a trial court’s abrupt opinion following a trial in an action at law in Lane Enterprises, we find that there is no excuse for a party’s failure to file post-trial motions from a trial court’s order following an equity trial, even if that order does not comply with the requirements for an adjudication listed in Rule 1517(a).12 See Lane Enterprises, 710 A.2d at 54. Thus, the exceptions provided in Community Sports, Derry Township, as well as those other cases by this Court relied upon by the Superior Court’ below, are no longer valid and our decision in Lane Enterprises applies in actions in equity, just as it applies in actions at law. With this unequivocal rule, there is no danger that parties will be confused as to whether they should file post-trial motions or proceed directly to an appeal from an order entered by a trial court in an action in equity.13
Notes
. Chalkey is now deceased and therefore is represented by her estate.
. Chalkey also sought preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining Roush from conveying the prоperty, encumbering the property, or selling timber from the property. Upon the filing of her complaint, the trial court granted Chalkey‘s request for a preliminary injunction and following a lengthy trial on October 10, 1997, it also granted Chalkey‘s request for a permanent injunction.
. Neither party objected to this incorporation of evidence from the previous proceedings.
. Given this finding, the trial court did not address Chalkey’s claims of false pretenses and fraud.
. Rule 1517(a) provides that following an equity trial:
(a) The сourt shall make an adjudication----The adjudication shall consist of (1) a statement of the issues; (2) a closely condensed chronological statement, in narrative form or in separate findings, of all the facts which are necessary to be known in order to determine the issues; (3) a discussion of the questions of law involved and the court’s conclusions of law; and (4) a decree nisi.
. The en banc panel of the Superior Court was divided with five judges agreeing with the majority opinion and four judges agreeing with the dissenting opinion. The dissent found that because the trial court’s opinion substantially complied with Rule 1517(a), the majority‘s analysis elevated form over substance. The dissent further determined that Rule 227.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in requiring a party to file post-trial motions at the conclusion of trial in an action at law and in equity and therefore, Roush’s failure to do so warranted a finding that his claims were waived pursuant to Lane Enterprises, 551 Pa. 306, 710 A.2d 54.
. As this issue concerns a matter of law, our scope of review is plenary. Phillips v. A-Best Products Co., 542 Pa. 124, 665 A.2d 1167, 1170 (1995).
. Rule 1518 provided that within twenty days from a court’s adjudication, a party could file exceptions from that adjudication. Furthermore, Rule 1518 stated that “[mjatters not covered by exceptions are deemed waived, unless, prior to final decree, leave is granted to file exceptions raising these matters.”
. The purpose for Rule 227.1 is to provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct errors in its ruling and avert the need for appellate review. See
. In deciding whether to review the appellant’s claims, the Superior Court relied on Donegal Mutual Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 377 Pa.Super. 171, 546 A.2d 1212 (1988), and Storti v. Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co., 331 Pa.Super. 26, 479 A.2d 1061 (1984), both actions in equity. In those cases, the Superior Court excused the appellant’s failure to file post-trial motions because the trial court entered an adjudication that failed to conform to Rule 1517(a) and thus, may have confused the appealing party as to whether post-trial motions were necessary. 700 A.2d at 465.
. In reviewing the exception to the waiver rule, the Superior Court also relied on this Court’s decisions in In re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights to B.M.D. and R.L.D., 487 Pa. 387, 409 A.2d 404 (1979) and Partrick & Wilkins Co. v. Adams, 456 Pa. 566, 322 A.2d 341 (Pa. 1974). In B.M.D., this Court noted that the trial court completely disregarded Rule 1517(a) by entering a final decree rather than a decree nisi. Thus, the Court concluded that the trial court’s order must be vacated and the case remanded so that the trial court could enter an appropriate adjudication from which the appellant could file exceptions. 409 A.2d at 407. Similarly, in Partrick & Wilkins Co., the trial court entered a “final decree” and this Court determined that the decree must be vacated because it essentially precluded the appellant from filing exceptions. 322 A.2d at 341.
. Although we do not aрprove of a trial court’s failure to issue an adjudication in accordance with Rule 1517(a), we do not believe that the trial court‘s error should excuse a party‘s duty to file post-trial motions from the trial court’s order at the conclusion of trial. When the party files post-trial motions, it can point out any errors in the trial court‘s adjudication, including the court’s failure to comply with Rule 1517(a). The trial court shall then issue a supporting memorandum that compliеs with Rule 1517(a). Furthermore, if a party is unsure whether the trial court has entered an adjudication from which post-trial motions must be filed, the party may always petition the trial court to determine whether the trial court intended its order to be an adjudication from which post-trial motions would follow.
. In his concurring opinion, Justice Saylor states that our decision today will nevertheless lead to confusion because it is inconsistent with this Court’s decision in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wickett, 563 Pa. 595, 763 A.2d 813 (2000). We disagree. In Wickett, a declaratory judgment action pursuant to
. Indeed, upon receiving a trial court’s order and opinion in an equity action, parties have been forced to face the untenable choice of filing post-trial motions and risking the forfeiture of their appellate rights due to the expiration of the appeal period or filing a direct appeal and risking a holding that their issues were waived due to their failure to file post-trial motions.
Concurrence Opinion
Concurring.
In Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wickett, 563 Pa. 595, 763 A.2d 813 (2000), this Court endorsed a plain meaning approach to
I dissented in Wickett because I believed that the Court could and should adopt an interpretation aligning declaratory judgment jurisprudence with that which applies to civil actions generally. See Wickett, 563 Pa. at 605, 763 A.2d at 819 (Saylor, J., dissenting). I am able to join the majority’s disposition here because, given the choice between applying Wickett’s reasoning consistently to require an immediate appeal in proceedings involving premature judgments in declaratory judgment proceedings and aligning Rule 227.1 jurisprudence concerning declaratory judgments with that pertaining to civil judgments generally, I favor the latter course. I strongly believe, however, that the Court
. While Wickett involved summary disposition of claims against less than all parties, its reasoning was tied to the character of the proceedings, and the issuance of orders actually declaring the substantive rights of parties. See Wickett, 563 Pa. at 603, 763 A.2d at 818. Therefore, for present purposes, I do not viеw the some versus all parties distinction as a reasonable basis for distinguishing the present case from Wickett. Additionally, although Wickett was styled as a declaratory judgment proceeding, whereas the present action is framed more generally as an action in equity,
. I recognize that the issuance of the order was improper in the procedural posture of the case, as the rules require the making of an adjudication prior to the entry of judgment. See
Respectfully, I disagree with the majority’s position that
The determination in Lane Enterprises is also distinguishable, since the appeal did not involve a declaratory judgment; moreover, in that case the trial court issued an opinion but no dispositive order. See Lane Enterprises v. L.B. Foster Co., 700 A.2d 465, 470 (Pa.Super.1997) (observing that “the [trial] court filed an opinion addressing issues which had been submitted to it, albeit prior to issuing a verdict”), rev’d per curiam, 551 Pa. 306, 710 A.2d 54 (1998).