J-A07009-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
STEVEN D. ST. CLAIR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
GARY F. AND LAURA D. SPENCER :
:
Appellants : No. 1103 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 8, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Civil Division at No(s): 7017-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 15, 2018
Gary F. and Laura D. Spencer appeal from the judgment1 entered in the
Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, granting quiet title to Appellee,
Steven D. St. Clair. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding
Appellee established adverse possession of the disputed parcel of land. We
affirm.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Appellants purport to appeal from the order entered June 13, 2017, denying
their post-trial motion. See Notice of Appeal, 7/11/17. “Orders denying post-
trial motions, however, are not appealable. Rather it is the subsequent
judgment that is the appealable order when a trial has occurred.” Harvey v.
Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523, 524 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation
omitted). Judgment was not entered until August 8, 2017, making Appellants’
notice of appeal prematurely filed. However, as judgment has been entered
on the verdict, we will treat the notice of appeal previously filed in this case
as filed after the entry of judgment. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5). The appeals
statement has been corrected.
J-A07009-18
In 2015, Appellee purchased a property located at 565 Salem Boulevard
in Berwick, Pennsylvania, from the Estate of George W. McQuown, Sr. Shortly
after purchasing the property, Appellee learned he did not hold fee title to the
parcel of land on which his property was located. Therefore, Appellee filed a
complaint seeking quiet title to the parcel under a theory of adverse
possession. Appellants, the record owners of the disputed parcel, contested
Appellee’s claim.
The matter proceeded to a non-jury trial. Both parties presented
witnesses, as well as several documents supporting their claims. Included
within these documents were the deeds to Appellee’s and Appellants’
respective parcels of lands, as well as the deed of sale from the Estate of
McQuown to Appellee. After considering this evidence, the trial court
determined Appellee had proven adverse possession of the disputed parcel
and quieted title to Appellee. This appeal follows.2
On appeal, Appellants assert the trial court erred in failing to consider
the lack of privity between Appellee and McQuown. Appellants contend that
Appellee needed to establish privity with McQuown in order to tack on
McQuown’s adverse use of the premises and establish adverse possession.
____________________________________________
2 Appellant’s post-trial motion, filed on May 8, 2017, was untimely. See
Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c)(2). However, because the trial court elected to decide
Appellants’ post-trial motion on the merits, the issues raised therein are
properly before us. See Behar v. Frazier, 724 A.2d 943, 945-946 (Pa. Super.
1999); 16A Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 87:19 (2018).
-2-
J-A07009-18
However, Appellants assert Appellee cannot establish this privity because his
deed does not contain an actual description of the contested parcel, and
therefore does not establish that the Estate of McQuown intended to convey
McQuown’s adverse use of the property to Appellee.
Based upon Appellants’ allegation of trial court error, the resolution of
this appeal hinges on our examination of the parties’ respective deeds and the
deed of sale. However, Appellants have completely failed to ensure that these
documents are part of the certified record on appeal.
This Court cannot meaningfully review claims raised on appeal
unless we are provided with a full and complete certified record.
This requirement is not a mere “technicality” nor is this a question
of whether we are empowered to complain sua sponte of lacune
in the record. In the absence of an adequate certified record, there
is no support for an appellant’s arguments and, thus, there is no
basis on which relief could be granted.
Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc)
(internal citation omitted). “[T]he ultimate responsibility of ensuring that the
transmitted record is complete rests squarely upon the appellant and not upon
the appellate courts.” Id (citation omitted).3
____________________________________________
3 While sections of the documents in question are included within the
reproduced record, a document does not become part of the certified record
by merely placing a copy in the reproduced record. See Preston, 904 A.2d at
6 (“In this regard, our law is the same in both the civil and criminal context
because, under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, any document
which is not part of the officially certified record is deemed non-existent—a
deficiency which cannot be remedied merely by including copies of the missing
documents in a brief or in the reproduced record. … Simply put, if a document
is not in the certified record, the Superior Court may not consider it.”)
Interestingly, in an order from this Court filed December 22, 2017, we
-3-
J-A07009-18
Without the documents at issue, there is no support for Appellant’s sole
issue on appeal. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s sole issue on appeal waived.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/15/2018
____________________________________________
reminded the parties of this concept—and informed them of their right to
request correction of the certified record in the trial court to include any
omitted material. Neither party moved to correct the certified record.
-4-