J-S60027-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DAVID A. VOSBURG, STUART A. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
VOSBURG, RICHARD K. VOSBURG, : PENNSYLVANIA
JILL L. VOSBURG, MARK S. :
VOSBURG, MATTHEW W. VOSBURG, :
MARSHALL W. VOSBURG, AND :
KATHERINE M. VOSBURG :
:
Appellants :
: No. 752 MDA 2018
:
v. :
:
:
ESTATE OF JACOB BREYMEIER :
:
Appeal from the Order Entered April 6, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s):
13126-2006
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MARCH 18, 2019
Appellant Richard K. Vosburg, acting pro se as a purported
representative of Appellants David A. Vosburg, Stuart A. Vosburg, Jill L.
Vosburg, Mark S. Vosburg, Matthew W. Vosburg, Marshall W. Vosburg, and
Katherine M. Vosburg, appeals from the order entered April 6, 2018, which
granted post-trial motions filed by Appellee Edward Slaska as representative
of the Estate of Jacob Breymeier and amended the judgment entered on
November 2, 2017. Appellant asserts that the trial court violated his right to
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60027-18
a fair trial. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Appellant has waived
all issues for appeal, and we affirm.
As the parties are well aware of the history to this matter, we briefly
recite the following relevant background. Two groups, the “Albert M. Vosburg,
Jr. heirs”1 and the “Stuart W. Vosburg heirs,”2 owned a portion of property
(the property) in Luzerne County. In 2006, the two groups began to pursue
a quiet title action regarding the property. The trial court entered a default
judgment to quiet title in 2007. In 2016, Appellee filed a petition to strike the
order to quiet title, asserting that he owned half of the property and had not
been notified of the quiet title action prior to the default judgment being
entered.
The trial court issued an order on March 16, 2016, striking the default
judgment to quiet title. On March 31, 2016, Appellee filed an answer with
new matter. Appellee asserted that the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs had initiated
the quiet title action without performing a diligent search of the chain of title,
which would have shown that Appellee owned half of the property through the
Estate of Jacob Breymeier. Appellee additionally sought attorney’s fees.
____________________________________________
1 This group of heirs includes Albert M. Vosburg, III and Dawn Vosburg
Anderson.
2 This group of heirs includes Appellant, Stuart A. Vosburg, David A. Vosburg,
Jill L. Vosburg, Mark S. Vosburg, Matthew W. Vosburg, Marshall W. Vosburg,
and Katherine M. Vosburg. The Stuart W. Vosburg heirs were initially
represented by counsel, who filed a petition to withdraw after being dismissed
as counsel in July 2016. The trial court granted the withdrawal petition on
August 22, 2016.
-2-
J-S60027-18
Appellee also filed a discontinuance in the action, but before the trial court
ruled on it, he filed a petition to strike the discontinuance so he could file an
amended answer with new matter including a counterclaim.
The trial court granted the petition to strike the discontinuance and
permitted Appellee to file an amended answer. Appellee filed an amended
answer, including new matter with a counterclaim, in which he alleged that he
was owed a portion of monies received from timbering the property. On March
30, 2017, the Albert M. Vosburg, Jr. heirs filed a cross-claim against the Stuart
W. Vosburg heirs regarding allegedly withheld timbering money. The court
dismissed the Albert M. Vosburg, Jr. heirs’ cross-claim on September 8, 2017.
A non-jury trial took place on September 11, 2017. Testimony
established that the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs knew that Appellee had an
interest in the subject property through the Estate of Jacob Breymeier. The
testimony also showed that the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs failed to conduct a
diligent search of the chain of title of the property and instituted the quiet title
action to extinguish Appellee’s rights to half of the property.
The trial court found that Appellee owned half of the property, the Stuart
W. Vosburg heirs owned one-quarter of the property, and the Albert M.
Vosburg, Jr. heirs owned one-quarter of the property. The court also found
that the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs did not disburse any of the $38,000.00
received from timbering activities to the other owners. On November 2, 2017,
the court entered a judgment in favor of Appellee of $19,125.00, plus interest,
for timbering monies and $10,404.00 for attorney fees. The court also entered
-3-
J-S60027-18
a judgment in favor of the Albert M. Vosburg, Jr. heirs of $9,500.00, plus
costs, for timbering monies.
On November 9, 2017, Appellee filed timely post-trial motions seeking
additional interest and legal, expert, and title search fees. On November 29,
2017, Appellant, on behalf of the Stuart W. Vosburg heirs, filed a pro se notice
of appeal with this Court. This Court quashed the appeal on March 8, 2018.
The trial court held a hearing on Appellee’s post-trial motions on April 4, 2018.
The court entered an order on April 5, 2018, which amended the November
2, 2017 judgment in favor of Appellee and increased it by $10,676.90.
Appellant filed a second pro se notice of appeal with this Court on May
4, 2018. Appellant filed a timely court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement
on May 29, 2018. The trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. What has the [trial] court done with Appellant’s 145 pages of
prepared material evidence in this case that the court
specifically directed, during trial, the Appellant to produce
within thirty (30) days from the date of trial?
2. Why did the trial court direct the Appellant to submit his
evidence in written fashion, after trial, instead of granting
Appellant . . . his request, at trial, to present this evidence
through questioning of the two (2) attorneys accused of fraud
and collusion by Appellant?
3. As only the [trial] court can answer these questions that have
been properly raised in procedurally filed Statement of Errors,
why has the court not done so? And why, ten (10) months
after trial, with these serious questions remaining unanswered,
are the 145 pages of evidence produced by Appellant . . . still
buried by the [trial] court outside the official file of the Clerk of
Courts?
-4-
J-S60027-18
Appellant’s Brief at 2-3.
Before we analyze Appellant’s issues, we must consider whether
Appellant preserved them for appeal. Under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c),
[p]ost-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after . . . the
filing of the decision in the case of a trial without jury. If a party
has filed a timely post-trial motion, any other party may file a
post-trial motion within ten days after the filing of the first post-
trial motion.
Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c) (emphasis added). Further,
[u]nder Rule 227.1, a party must file post-trial motions at the
conclusion of a trial in any type of action in order to preserve
claims that the party wishes to raise on appeal. In other words, a
trial court’s order at the conclusion of a trial, whether the action
is one at law or in equity, simply cannot become final for purposes
of filing an appeal until the court decides any timely post-trial
motions. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(a).
Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491, 496 (Pa. 2002) (emphasis in original).
“Grounds not specified by a party in post-trial motions pursuant to Rule 227.1
shall be deemed waived on appellate review.” Id. at 494 (citations omitted).
Here, Appellee filed timely post-trial motions on November 9, 2017.
Under Rule 227.1(c), Appellant would have had until ten days after Appellee
filed post-trial motions to file his own timely post-trial motions. See Pa.R.C.P.
227.1(c). However, Appellant filed no post-trial motions. Accordingly, all of
Appellant’s issues raised on appeal have been waived. See Chalkey, 805
A.2d at 494.
Order affirmed.
-5-
J-S60027-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/18/2019
-6-