HARRISBURG – A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has ruled that the popular Camelback Resort’s failure to file proper post-trial motions has stopped an appeal, which sought reconsideration of a trial court decision to bar it from putting up a sign in a space it shares with another entity.
A Dec. 9 ruling from Superior Court Judge Kate Ford Elliott outlined the Court’s rationale in this matter.
“Appellant is the owner of The Chateau Resort and Conference Center located in Tannersville. Appellee Mountain Edge Village Association owns property adjacent to the Resort. The Resort and the Association both use the driveway located in the easement in question to access their respective properties and a divider island separates the lanes of traffic on the driveway contained within the easement,” Ford Elliott stated.
“Appellant has raised multiple claims challenging the trial court’s determination that it did not have a right to erect and maintain a sign on a divider island located on the driveway easement utilized by the parties. Prior to addressing the merits of appellant’s claims, however, we must determine whether it has properly preserved its claims for appellate review.”
Ford Elliott explained Camelback Resort, LLC failed to file post-trial motions within the statutory 10-day time limit following the culmination of the non-jury trial.
“Appellant posits that since its case was decided on stipulated facts following oral argument and the submission of briefs, without the admission of any additional exhibits or testimony, the Dec. 17, 2019 proceeding did not constitute a non-jury trial and was more akin to a motion for summary judgment. We disagree,” Ford Elliott stated.
Ford Elliott said that in the present case, the parties were scheduled for a non-jury trial on Dec. 17, 2019, and agreed at that proceeding to submit the issues to the trial court upon stipulated facts.
The judge added that the matter “proceeded as a non-jury trial and the trial court’s disposition is consistent with a non-jury verdict,” with the trial court issuing its opinion and order on Jan. 23, 2020, following oral argument and the submission of briefs.
“It is evident that the parties knew that this would result in a final determination. It is well settled that a case may be submitted to the trial court on stipulated facts and the ‘practice and procedure as far as practicable shall be in accordance with the rules governing a trial without a jury.’ Thus, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1038.1 clearly provides that cases submitted on stipulated facts are required to follow the same rules that govern non-jury trials. This includes the requirement to file post-trial motions,” Ford Elliott said.
“Accordingly, in order to preserve its issues for appellate review, appellant was required to file post-trial motions by Feb. 3, 2020. Appellant’s failure to do so results in the waiver of its issues on appeal and necessitates that we quash this appeal.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 831 EDA 2020
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com