*2 CIRILLO, JOHNSON, Before BECK and JJ. CIRILLO, Judge: Winpenny (Appellant) appeals from an order entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County approving Distribution, Schedule Costs and Master’s Fees for pursuant sоld to a partition order of the Court of Pleas, Common of a long-standing divorce proceeding. affirm in part We in part remand assessment costs. *3 13, 1977, On April Lane, Partition of 6 Prince Edward Township, Middletown County, Pennsylvania, Delaware was by directed the Court Common Pleas of County Delaware of the divorce settlement of Carol and James Winpen- (James). III ny, Appellant appealed the partition order. The court, was affirmed this Winpenny v. Winpenny, 299, (1982), and Pennsylvania the Supreme Court denied petition for allocatur. 10- 15-82, No. 192 E.D.Allocatur Docket 1982. A petition for rehearing by this court was deniеd. 28, 1983,
On March an order was entered by the Court of Common Pleas County, of Delaware appointing Howard S. Klein, in Esquire, as Master Partition to conduct a sale of the property. This order was appealed by Appellant and affirmed by this Pennsylvania court. The Supreme Court denied Ap- pellant’s petition to appeal. April
On disposition after of the appeals related to order, the March Appellant moved the Court of Common Pleas of County Delaware for reconsideration of the order. Reconsideration was denied and the April orders of 1977 and Marсh 1983 were directed for enforcement. bid James’ 1984, Appellant submitted a On March to the condition subject This bid was property. the share of partition [half] and the costs “only [half] (sic) sewer the prоperty [half] on said the taxes liened (sic) ... paid shall cash rent liened on said (sic) against liens judgment [the] satisfaction towards This bid James, County.” R.R. in Delaware recorded due to the conditions Master Pаrtition rejected by was attached. fair market value was 11,1987, a bid approximating
On purchase property. D. to Conley Thomas submitted agree- trial court approved This bid was accepted motions February sale on 1988. Post-trial ment of this appealed were and she to court. denied (No. 8, 1989 memorandum decision dated November 1988), of Appellant’s PHL this the merits court addressed Suprеme the trial court’s order. The claims and affirmed appeal. denied Appellant’s petition Court of to D. direct com- Conley petitioned Thomas trial February 1988 order. and enforcemеnt pliance After Conley in this notice and joined petition. James Mr. Septem- order dated argument, oral the trial court entered an Conley. Appellant to ber 1990 to the sale Mr. enforce court. appealed enforcement order subsequently (No. PHL This court affirmed trial court’s order 1990), Penn- Appellant petitioned Supreme sylvania *4 a for Approval
The Master in Partition filed Motion Distribution, Costs, for the sale on the and Master’s Fees 29, on and a rule was entered rule, all of which were denied. quash filed three motions to 16, Meanwhile, July Pennsylvania, Supreme September 1990 appeal denied Aрpellant’s matter, on the trial Following hearing order. Appellant appeals the sale. approving entered an issue: following order and raises the 352 the trial court to order the proper it was
Whether motibn, scheduling of Partition Master’s distribu- approval while an proceeds property, tion of the from the sale of the Supreme Pennsyl- was before the Court petition allоcatur disparate vania on a issue? of review in such cases is whether an
The standard the trial court. Johnson was committed abuse discretion (1987) Johnson, 409, 411, v. A.2d 1124 Pa.Super. 365 529 Diamond, v. 101, 105, (citing Diamond Pa.Super. 360 519 A.2d omitted). (1987)) (further citations An abuse of 1014 “if trial to follow will be found court failed discretion Braderman v. misapplied or the law.” proper legal procedure Braderman, (1985) Pa.Super. Banks, (citing Banks
(1980)). from decisions of the
Excеpt appeals Commonwealth § allowed under Pa.C.S. appeals Court and direct by permis- are petitions Supreme to the Court 724; sion, § Pa.R.A.P. 1114. Failure by right. not Pa.C.S. means that the decision of the grаnt such review addition, petition Supreme stands as law. to the Court allowance of an' does not have the effect of appeal Court for proceedings. the trial court Pa.R.A.P. 1313. staying Furthеrmore, foregoing as is clear from the discussion of gleaned of this the issues procedural history brief have been before this court on no less than Appellant’s of this previous Supreme five оccasions and before Court Re-evaluation is im- prior state on at least four occasions. proper pointless. difficulties this matter stem from a misunder- and, in particular, of court the duties and
standing procedure court-appointed of a Master Partition. responsibilities requirement persons is no means a who While it be skilled in appear before the courts of this Commonwеalth law, statutes, rules, regula- of its interpretation the same arbitrary, requires practice. By tions is not token, not be system managea- the court could not and would *5 practi- the acquired exрertise some reliance on ble without It is by procedural rules. processes in its as dictated tioners be most complex areas of the law can true that certain however, commоn tedious, require no more than mere others patience comprehend. to sense and exposed have to more courts may been Although Appellant attorneys, she has many than thrоugh filings experienced her understanding importance garner any failed to paid heed to judgments. effect of Had she procedure the may opinions she any of the numerous rendered exists system have court to review appellate realized that A allegations by of error committed the trial courts. genuine opera- invoke the mimicry mere of the buzzwords intended to relief. justicе party tion of does not entitle a to instant by system, Abuse of the court whether seasoned or cannot tolerated. The attorneys by pro parties, se be of “law of case”1 and res exist tо principals judicata2 situations, finality litigation prevent to such provide occurring. Valley us Banker v. the one before See Co., Forge Ins. 585 A.2d (1991). A to must all matters related an issue party raise them rаising or be barred from opportunity first forever again. highest pro Id. consideration to the giving Even that party, se there can be no doubt from record every hearings has had on the opportunity appropriate There no points complains.3 various of which she now is also appellate 1. The doctrine states that issues decided an prior appeal parties cаse and between same become the law the Tick, will Commonwealth v. not reconsidered on second Inc., (1968). 431 Pa. Court, unpublished opinion has 2. This in an dated December party already matter, Conley determined that Mr. is a to this “successor” adjudication precluding possibility made thus was not parties proceeding. with identical adjudication respect to 3. Carol’s contentions of no with hеr bid have Winpenny specifically Court in been addressed 88-3335, 1989). (Pa.Super. slip op. Nov. Winpenny, No. at 3-4 addition, hearings transcripts least held the record includes at five the trial court on these various issues. Appellant’s proposition adjudica- basis for that the numerous tions with the intent to of her deny rights. were made her litigant
Avenues exist to assist a who does not have the *6 to retain Although Appellant may resources counsel. have had unplеasant experiences prior attempt gaining with at assistance, legal it is not clear whether all her current routes to such assistance have been exhausted. Rather than continu- claims, ing to face denial of her we suggest that explore opportunities commencing any these before further litigation. .encourage Appellant’s prudent
To further more use legal we are system, assessing against costs her. Under Rule of Procedure Appellate costs, appellate may award as further damages [A]n may just, including as
(1) a reasonable counsel fee and (2) ..., damages delay if it that an appeal appel- determines is frivolous.... The may late court remand the case to the trial court to deter- damages mine the amount of authorized rule. by this Pa.R.A.P. 2744. An appeal simply is not frivolous because it Marino, lacks merit. Marino Marino v. (1992). frivolous, however, A A.2d 1240 claim is if it above,
has no basis in law or fact. Id. As stated we find the claim to lack foundation. Allowing Appellant such pursue to continue to utilize the courts to fruitless claims expense only of not the opponents specifically, but also the public, will not be tolerated. Accordingly, we remand for a hearing appropriate determine costs to be paid Appel- Co.), lant. (Saquoit See Patel v. W.C.A.B. Fibers 103 Pa. (1987) Commw. (citing Appeal of Richard George, Michael 101 Pa.Commw.
(1986)).
Order affirmed in part hearing remanded for a and assessment of costs. relinquished. Jurisdiction J., BECK, concurs the result.
JOHNSON, dissenting statement. J., concurring files a JOHNSON, concurring dissenting: Judge, my distinguished Opinion I in so much concur approving as affirms the order of colleagues upon partition. of distribution schedule Opinion respectfully portion I must dissent Winpenny, Appellant. costs against which would award III, husband, partici- did not Winpenny, The Jаmes B. former Thomas D. appellee, responding The pate on pages. of seven composed has brief Conley, submitted damages, costs and application There been no for further has I refrain from by Pa.R.A.P. would contemplated as under permitted costs and considering damages, further request being made one Pa.R.A.P. without some *7 parties. Kathy Adamski David ADAMSKI and v. Company. MILLER and Allstate Insurance Ronald C. Appeal of ALLSTATE COMPANY. INSURANCE Adamski, Kathy Appellants, David ADAMSKI and Company. Ronald MILLER and Allstate Insurance Pennsylvania. Superior Court of Argued Feb. 1994. 3,May Filed 1994. Reargument July Denied