Opinion by
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) here appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which modified the penalty imposed upon Willow Grove Vеterans Home Association, Inc. by the Board. The order was announced in open court after a trial de novo, and the Board did not object to the terms of the order, nor did it file any post-trial motions for relief.
The issues before this Court are (1) whether the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure apply in this case such that post-trial motions for relief are a prerequisite to an appeal, and (2) if not, whether the Boards failure to object to the order in open court constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal, and (3) if not, whether thе trial court may modify the penalty imposed by the Board without significantly and materially altering the findings of fact of the Board. We will address these issues seriatim.
Pa. R. C. P. No. 227.1 concerning post-trial rеlief was adopted effective January 1, 1984, and amended effective July 1, 1985. As of September 20, 1984, when the instant case was appealed to this Court, the rule stated:
(a) After trial and upоn the written Motion for Post-Trial Relief filed by any party, the court may
(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.
*394 (b) Post-trial relief may not be granted unless the grounds therefor,
(1) if then аvailable, were raised in pre-trial proceedings or by motion, objection, point for charge, request for findings of feet or conclusions of law, offer of proof or othеr appropriate method at trial; and
(2) are specified in the motion. The motion shall state how the grounds were asserted in pretrial proceedings or at trial. Grounds not specified are deemed waived unless leave is granted upon cause shown to specify additional grounds.
(c) Post-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after
(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to agree, or nonsuit in the сase of a jury trial; or
(2) notice of the filing of the decision or adjudication in the case of a trial without jury or equity trial.
If a party has filed a timely post-trial motion, any other party mаy file a post-trial motion within ten days after the filing of the first post-trial motion.
It is vital that the practitioner of law know when this rule is applicable. If it is not applicable, and the practitioner files a motion for post-trial relief, the practitioner risks an untimely appeal, because such improper motion will be treated as a petition for reconsideration, which does not stay the appeal period.
Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District,
In considering whether Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1 is applicable to the instant appeal, we must preliminarily examine when it or its prеdecessors have been found inapplicable. In
Appeal of Sgro,
The taxpayers seem to argue that appeals would not be cognizable . . . because the board filed no exceptions to those orders under Pa. R.C.P. No. 1038(d), but the taxpayers have given us no indication as to why that rule should be applied here; Pa. R.C.P. No. 1038(d) is part of the assumpsit rules and relates to statutоry appeals only when applied by statute or local rule of court, [citation omitted].
Prior to the adoption of Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1 each chapter at law or in equity had a sеparate rule governing post-trial relief. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1038(d) was rescinded effective January 1, 1984, and replaced by Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1. Furthermore, in all chapters at law or in equity there is a rule requiring thаt proceedings under such chapter shall be in accordance with the rules relating to a civil action, except as otherwise provided in such chapter. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 1061; Pa. R.C.P. Nо. 1071; Pa. R.C.P. No. 1091; Pa. R.C.P. No. 1111; Pa. R.C.P. No. 1141(b); Pa. R.C.P. No. 1161(b). A “civil action” is defined by Pa. R.C.P. No. 1001:
(b)(1) All claims heretofore asserted in assumpsit or trespass shall be asserted in one form of action to be known as ‘civil аction.’
(2) Other forms of action which incorporate these rules by reference shall be known as ‘civil action—[type of action].’
*396 Certain rules are applicable to all such civil actions. Pa. R.C.P No. 250 specifically provides: “[t]he rules of this chapter shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings at law and in equity.” Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1 was, therefore, a rule aimed at achieving conformity among all civil actions as regards post-trial relief. Therefore, it is clear that Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1 has the same practical effect as Pa. R.C.P. No. 1038(d) formerly did, excepting that its scope is broаder, encompassing all civil actions. Since Pa. R.C.P. No. 1038(d) was not applicable to statutory appeals, neither is Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1. Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1 applies only to civil actions as definеd and governed, by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. It relates to statutory appeals only when applied by statute or local rule. The Board was not required to request post-trial relief, unless required to so do by statute or local rule.
An examination of the Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. §§4-471 and 4-464, reveals only that the Court of Common Pleas is required to “sustain, reject, altеr or modify the findings, conclusions and penalties of the board, based on the findings of feet and conclusions of law as found by the court.” 47 P.S. §4-471. There is nowhere any requirement that post-trial reliеf be requested.
This brings us to an examination of the local rules of Montgomery County. Local rules are specifically authorized by Pa. R.C.P. No. 239, as long as they are not inconsistent with “any genеral rule of the Supreme Court or any Act of Assembly.” Pa. R.C.P. No. 239(b);
See Brogan v. Holmes Electric Protective Company of Philadelphia,
Thе Montgomery County local rules adopt the same definitions as those of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
See
Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure No. 76(a). The wording of Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure No. 252 uses language similar enough to Pa. R.C.P. No. 250 that we find that “actions at law” as used in the Montgomery County Rules of Civil Procedure was meant to mean “civil actions” as definеd by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the local rules also do not require the filing of post-trial motions. Of course, certain local rules do apply to statutory аppeals,
See Hess v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals,
We must thus reach the second issue of whether the Boards failure to object to the trial courts order precludes the Board from challenging the order on apрeal. There can be no doubt that issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Pa. R.A.P. No. 302(a).
The Board asserts an order is not an “issue.” We must agree with the Board. An “issue” is a disputed point or question on which parties to an action desire the court to decide. The “order” is the decision of the court on the “issue.” When one “objects” to the decision of a court, one appeals the decision.
In the instant case, counsel for the Board specifically stated: “Your Honоr, I don’t have any objection to that,” after the order was announced in open court. While this language certainly has the appearance of waiver, by the *398 logic of the trial court, had the Boards counsel said nothing he also would have waived the issue. Practically this would force practitioners to object to every decision or order of а trial court, so that if they decide, upon a review of the case, to appeal, they will be found to have preserved the issue. Such would be cumbersome and an exercise in futility. Since we hold that there is no requirement that a party object to an order before appealing such order, statements made by counsel following the announcement оf the order in open court are immaterial, and will be disregarded.
This brings us to the merits of the Boards appeal. Simply stated, the issue is whether a trial court can modify penalties impоsed by the Board when it adopts, the Boards Findings of Fact as its own after conducting a
de novo
hearing. We have previously answered this question. A trial court may not change a penalty of the Board unless it has made significantly and materially different findings from the Board.
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Pollock,
Accordingly, we reverse.
Order
And Now, May 21, 1986, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 353 July 1984 Mise., dated September 11, 1984, is reversed and the order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board is reinstated.
Jurisdiction relinquished.