New Brittany II v. Zayatz, T. & J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 13, 2021
• Docket: 116 MDA 2021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S17026-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NEW BRITTANY II HOMEOWNERS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ASSOCIATION : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellant : : v. : : THOMAS AND JANET ZAYATZ : No. 116 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered December 21, 2020, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Civil Division at No(s): 2019-SU-000612.

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2021

Plaintiff, New Brittany II Homeowners Assocation (“HOA”), appeals from

the order granting summary judgment to the Defendants, Thomas and Janet

Zayatz, on the HOA’s Claim against them. Because the Zayatzs’ Counterclaim

for attorney’s fees against the HOA remains unresolved in the trial court, we

quash this appeal as premature.

After receiving the HOA’s notice of appeal to this Court,1 the Zayatzs

moved to quash, because the appealed-from order was interlocutory. See ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 We note that exclusive, appellate jurisdiction over this case (wherein the trial court interpreted and applied the constitution, by-law, and regulations of the HOA) may lie in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, because the HOA is a non-profit of which the Zayatzs are members. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 762(a)(5)(ii) (grating the Commonwealth Court exclusive, subject-matter jurisdiction over appeals “involving the corporate affairs of any corporation (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S17026-21

Zayatzs’ 2/19/21 Motion to Quash. The HOA did not respond to the motion,

and this Court entered an order denying quashal. See Superior Court Order,

3/19/21. However, due to a scrivener’s error, this Court omitted the words

“without prejudice to reraise the issue of jurisdiction before the merits panel”

from that order. Upon merits-panel review, we agree with the Zayatzs.

“The jurisdiction of the court in a matter before it may be raised at any

time.” Forrester v. Hanson, 901 A.2d 548, 554 (Pa. Super. 2006). “This

Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a non-appealable,

interlocutory order.” Id.

A party may appeal to this Court “from a final order, from interlocutory

orders by permission, from certain interlocutory orders as of right, and from

certain collateral orders.” Redevelopment Auth. of Cambria v. Int'l Ins.

Co., 685 A.2d 581, 585 (Pa Super. 1996) (internal citations omitted). “A final

order is (1) any order that disposes of all claims or of all parties, (2) any order

that is expressly defined as a final order by statute, or (3) any order entered

as a final order pursuant to subsection (c) of Pa.R.A.P. 341.” Id.

Generally, an order disposing of one issue at summary judgment does

not constitute a final, appealable order. See, e.g., Swift v. Milner, 442 A.2d

1144 (Pa. Super. 1982); Rohr v. Keystone Insurance Co., 439 A.2d 809

____________________________________________

not-for-profit subject to Title 15 or the affairs of the members, security holders, directors, officers, or employees or agents thereof, as such.”). See Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Comm., 218 A.3d 927, 929 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc), transferred to, No. 24 C.D. 2018, 2020 WL 1079247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (unpublished), appeal granted, 241 A.3d 1094 (Pa. 2020).

-2- J-S17026-21

(Pa. Super. 1982). A final, appealable order is “any order that disposes of all

claims and of all parties; or is entered as a final order . . . .” Pa.R.A.P. 341

(emphasis added).

Here, the Zayatzs moved for limited summary judgment. They sought

judgment as a matter of law on the HOA’s action against them for allegedly

relocating their driveway in violation of the HOA’s constitution, by-laws, and

regulations. However, the Zayatzs specifically excluded their Counterclaim for

attorney’s fees from their motion from summary judgment. They asked the

trial court to “enter judgment in [their] favor on the issue of liablity and

schedule a hearing regarding the assessment of attorney’s fees.” Zayatzs’

Motion for Summary Judgment at 7. The trial court granted their motion

without addressing the Counterclaim seeking attorney’s fees.

Hence, a factual issue remains unresolved as to the Zayatzs’ measure

of damages – i.e., the amount of attorney’s fees the HOA owes them, if any,

for violating its internal operating rules and procedures. Because this factual

dispute is unresolved, the order granting summary judgment to the Zayatzs

on the question of liablity is not a final order disposing of all claims and all

parties. Thus, the order is interlocutory; the HOA’s appellate rights are not

ripe.

Appeal quashed.

-3- J-S17026-21

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 07/13/2021

-4-