Matczak v. Matczak

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Matczak v. Matczak

418 A.2d 663, 275 Pa. Super. 164, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2000

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 1, 1980

Docket2671

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 418 A.2d 663 (Matczak v. Matczak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matczak v. Matczak, 418 A.2d 663, 275 Pa. Super. 164, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2000 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellee filed an action in assumpsit against appellant and the matter proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrators ruled in favor of appellee and against appellant in the amount of $1,000. Appellee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County and, after a trial before a judge sitting without a jury, a decision was entered in his favor in the amount of $4,200. Appellant did not file exceptions to the decision of the court below within ten days as required by Pa.R.Civ.Pro., No. 1038. Instead, appellant filed a direct appeal to this court some twenty days after the decision.

The appeal must be quashed. See Blake v. Mayo Nurs. & Convales. Home, 245 Pa.Super. 274, 369 A.2d 400 (1976). Appellant argues that she could not file timely exceptions because the transcript of testimony was not available. Appellant might have filed a petition with the lower court, asking that it extend the ten day period because the transcript was unavailable. See E. J. McAleer & Co., Inc. v. Iceland Prods., 475 Pa. 610, 381 A.2d 441 (1977). However, appellant filed no such petition until after she had appealed to this court.

The appeal is quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellee filed an action in assumpsit against appellant and the matter proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrators ruled in favor of appellee and against appellant in the amount of $1,000. Appellee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County and, after a trial before a judge sitting without a jury, a decision was entered in his favor in the amount of $4,200. Appellant did not file exceptions to the decision of the court below within ten days as required by Pa.R.Civ.Pro., No. 1038. Instead, appellant filed a direct appeal to this court some twenty days after the decision.

The appeal must be quashed. See Blake v. Mayo Nurs. & Convales. Home, 245 Pa.Super. 274, 369 A.2d 400 (1976). Appellant argues that she could not file timely exceptions because the transcript of testimony was not available. Appellant might have filed a petition with the lower court, asking that it extend the ten day period because the transcript was unavailable. See E. J. McAleer & Co., Inc. v. Iceland Prods., 475 Pa. 610, 381 A.2d 441 (1977). However, appellant filed no such petition until after she had appealed to this court.

The appeal is quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 A.2d 663, 275 Pa. Super. 164, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matczak-v-matczak-pasuperct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack