J-S42012-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
STEPHEN J. BYERS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ERNEST E. LIGGETT AND MARILYN
KOSTIK LIGGETT
Appellants No. 1730 WDA 2013
Appeal from the Order September 30, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): GD 09-013539
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
Appellants, Ernest E. Liggett and Marilyn Kostik Liggett, appeal pro se
entered September 30, 2013, by the Honorable Alan David Hertzberg, Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We quash the appeal as
interlocutory.
This appeal is one in a long line of attempts by Appellants to postpone
d in Allegheny County. In the fall of
2006, Appellants obtained short-term loans from Appellee, Stephen J. Byers,
along with his agreement to purchase additional parcels of real property
located in Brownsville, Fayette County for use in real estate development.
When Appellants failed to repay the loans or purchase the additional
property, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in the Court of
J-S42012-14
Common Pleas of Fayette County that required Appellants to either pay
Byers a specified sum of money within 45 days or have judgment entered
against them. When Appellants did not pay the money within the agreed
upon timeframe, Byers entered judgment against Appellants in Fayette
County for $145,000.00.
In July 2009, Byers transferred the judgment to Allegheny County, and
issued a Writ of Execution for the sale of personalty and realty located at 43
Brownstone Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235. Over the following
years, Appellants have filed various motions to stay or obviate the
proceedings, all of which have been denied by the trial court and affirmed by
this Court. Relative to the instant proceedings, on September 20, 2013,
scheduled for November 4, 2013. The trial court denie
on September 30, 2013. This timely appeal followed.
An appeal will lie only from a final order unless otherwise permitted by
statute or rule. See Pa.R.A.P. 341. Further, an interlocutory appeal as of
right will lie from orders that are interlocutory in nature. See Pa.R.A.P. 311
(an appeal may be taken as of right from orders affecting judgments,
attachments, changes of venue, injunctions, peremptory judgment in
mandamus, new trials, partition, or other cases made appealable by statute
or rule).
did not effectively end the litigation or terminate the proceedings, it is
-2-
J-S42012-14
interlocutory. This Court has further held that an order denying a motion to
stay is not appealable as of right. See Farmers First Bank v. Wagner,
687 A.2d 390, 391-392 (Pa. Super. 1997) (order refusing to grant motion to
appeal as interlocutory.
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/23/2014
-3-