Hollinger, K. v. Dietrich, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 3, 2024
• Docket: 1623 MDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S39018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

KEVIN & LISA HOLLINGER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellants : : : v. : : : JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELLE : No. 1623 MDA 2022 MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER : RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA : TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. : D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD :

Appeal from the Order Entered April 14, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 20-03489

KEVIN & LISA HOLLINGER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellants : : : v. : : : JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELLE : No. 1624 MDA 2022 MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER : RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA : TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. : D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD :

Appeal from the Order Entered April 14, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 20-03489

KEVIN & LISA HOLLINGER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellants : : : v. : : J-S39018-23

: JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELLE : No. 1625 MDA 2022 MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER : RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA : TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. : D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD AND JOHN : DOES 1-10, JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10 :

Appeal from the Order Entered September 28, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 20-03489

KEVIN AND LISA HOLLINGER, HIS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WIFE : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellants : : : v. : : : No. 1626 MDA 2022 JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELE : MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER : RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA : TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. : D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD AND JOHN : DOES 1-10, JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10 :

Appeal from the Order Entered July 19, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 20 3489

KEVIN AND LISA HOLLINGER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellants : : : v. : : : JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELE : No. 1629 MDA 2022 MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER : RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA : TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC. : :

-2- J-S39018-23

D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD AND JOHN : DOES 1-10, JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10

Appeal from the Order Entered November 16, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 20 3489

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JANUARY 3, 2024

These consolidated appeals are filed from orders granting Appellee

Jennifer Dietrich’s motions in limine. Because these appeals are not properly

before us, we quash.

Given our disposition, we briefly summarize the facts of the case which

arises from the sale of a residential property in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.

Appellants Kevin and Lisa Hollinger purchased the property from Dietrich.

Dietrich was represented in the sale by Appellees Michele McCartney and

Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage (“Coldwell Banker”). The Hollingers

retained Appellees Lisa Tiger and Advance Realty, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Gold

(“Advance Realty”) to assist them with the purchase. In March 2020, the

Hollingers brought a complaint against Dietrich, McCartney, Coldwell Banker,

Tiger, and Advance Realty. The complaint alleged all defendants either

fraudulently or negligently concealed water infiltration, defective construction,

and moisture damage at the property, in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices

and Consumer Protection Law and the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law.

The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of

McCartney, Coldwell Banker, Tiger, and Advance Realty. The only remaining

-3- J-S39018-23

defendant at that point was Dietrich. The court set a trial date to begin on

October 4, 2022. Prior to trial, Dietrich filed several motions in limine. The

trial court granted three of Dietrich’s motions in limine, specifically her motion

to exclude the expert testimony of the Hollingers’ experts, her motion to

exclude any agreement other than the Agreement of Sale due to the parol

evidence rule and the integration clause contained in the Agreement of Sale,

and her motion to exclude testimony regarding the Seller Disclosure

Statement. The court found that Dietrich’s remaining motion seeking to limit

testimony regarding alleged water infiltration that occurred was moot because

of the court’s rulings on her other motions. See Trial Court Rule 1925(a)

Opinion, filed 12/8/22, at 15-16. The court noted in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion

that after it granted Dietrich’s motions in limine, it “removed the case from

the trial list as the [Hollingers] did not have a viable cause of action against

any defendant in this matter.” Id. at 15.

The Hollingers filed several appeals, including from the orders granting

summary judgment in favor of four of the defendants, as well as from the

orders granting Dietrich’s motions in limine. This Court consolidated the

appeals at Nos. 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, and 1629 MDA 2022.

On January 23, 2023, this Court issued a rule upon the Hollingers to

show cause as to the appealability of the trial court’s orders since the orders

were interlocutory, and it appeared no final order or judgment had been

entered. In response, the Hollingers maintained that once Dietrich’s three

motions in limine were granted, all claims and all parties were disposed of,

-4- J-S39018-23

and all the underlying orders became appealable. See Letter in Response to

Rule to Show Cause, filed 2/8/23, at 2. The Hollingers thus argued that all the

appeals are from final orders and none are interlocutory. Id. On March 17,

2023, the rule to show cause order was discharged, and the issue was referred

to this panel.

“The appealability of an order directly implicates the jurisdiction of the

court asked to review the order.” Bailey v. RAS Auto Body, Inc., 85 A.3d

1064, 1067 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted). This Court may “inquire at

any time, sua sponte, whether an order is appealable.” Id. at 1068 (citation

omitted).

“As a general rule, only final orders are appealable, and final orders are

defined as orders disposing of all claims and all parties.” In re Bridgeport

Fire Litigation, 51 A.3d 224, 229 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted); see

also Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) (stating a final order “disposes of all claims and of all

parties”). “Any order or other form of decision that adjudicates fewer than all

claims and all parties does not constitute a final order.” Kovalchick v. B.J.’s

Wholesale Club, 774 A.2d 776, 777 (Pa.Super. 2001) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 341).

Relevant here, “[a] ruling on a motion in limine is not a final order.” Id. (italics

removed).

Instantly, the Hollingers argue that the orders granting Dietrich’s

motions in limine were final orders because they had the practical effect of

disposing the remaining claims and parties. However, the orders granting

Dietrich’s motions in limine were not dispositive ― they did not enter any final

-5- J-S39018-23

judgments in Dietrich’s favor nor make final determinations as to any specific

claim or party. Rather, the orders simply precluded certain evidence, however

significant it might have been. As this Court pointed out in Liberty State

Bank v. Northeastern Bank of Pennsylvania, 683 A.2d 889, 890

(Pa.Super. 1996), “[w]hile the court’s grant of Appellee’s [m]otion in [l]imine

may have hampered Appellant’s presentation of its case, at that point it was

the responsibility of the parties to go forward with the case or for Appellee to

file a [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment the grant of which would have led

to an appeal.”

Further, there is no order on the docket striking the case from the trial

list. Thus, since there were no final orders entered by the trial court, we lack

jurisdiction. Accordingly, we quash the appeals and remand this case for

further proceedings.

Appeals quashed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

This decision was reached prior to January 2, 2024, with Judge McCaffery’s

participation.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 01/03/2024

-6-