Seven Springs Farms, Inc. v. King

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Seven Springs Farms, Inc. v. King

409 A.2d 1363, 269 Pa. Super. 361, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2853

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 12, 1979

Docket1023

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 409 A.2d 1363 (Seven Springs Farms, Inc. v. King) 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

Seven Springs Farms, Inc. v. King, 409 A.2d 1363, 269 Pa. Super. 361, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2853 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

*363 PER CURIAM:

On November 1,1976, after a non-jury trial, the lower court filed an opinion and entered a verdict in favor of appellee. Appellant failed to file exceptions, and judgment was entered on the verdict on December 9, 1976. On January 5, 1977, appellant filed an appeal to this court. On March 14,1977, this court quashed the appeal without prejudice to seek relief in the lower court. On March 30, 1977, appellant moved the lower court to either strike or open the judgment of December 9, 1976, or to permit either an appeal nunc pro tunc or the filing of exceptions nunc pro tunc. All of these requests were denied, and this appeal followed.

The critical issue is appellant’s failure to file exceptions to the court’s verdict. In requesting that she be allowed to file exceptions nunc pro tunc, appellant has not demonstrated any reasons why her previous failure to file exceptions should be excused. Appellant’s counsel had notice of the court’s verdict on or about November 2, 1976, and he has not explained either why he failed to file exceptions before the entry of the judgment on December 9, 1976, or why he failed to request permission to file late exceptions thereafter. Based upon the present record, we agree with the lower court that the failure to file timely exceptions or to move to file late exceptions, must be attributed to mere inadvertence, which is not a sufficient excuse. See E. J. McAleer & Co., Inc. v. Iceland Prods., Inc., 475 Pa. 610, 615, 381 A.2d 441, 444 (1977).

Since appellant failed to file exceptions to the verdict, her requests to strike or open the judgment entered on December 9, 1976, or to permit an appeal nunc pro tunc are of no practical significance. In any event, we have reviewed the record and have found no defect in the record or any other circumstance that convinces us that the lower court here abused its discretion in refusing to either open or strike the judgment or to permit an appeal nunc pro tunc.

Affirmed.

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

*363 PER CURIAM:

On November 1,1976, after a non-jury trial, the lower court filed an opinion and entered a verdict in favor of appellee. Appellant failed to file exceptions, and judgment was entered on the verdict on December 9, 1976. On January 5, 1977, appellant filed an appeal to this court. On March 14,1977, this court quashed the appeal without prejudice to seek relief in the lower court. On March 30, 1977, appellant moved the lower court to either strike or open the judgment of December 9, 1976, or to permit either an appeal nunc pro tunc or the filing of exceptions nunc pro tunc. All of these requests were denied, and this appeal followed.

The critical issue is appellant’s failure to file exceptions to the court’s verdict. In requesting that she be allowed to file exceptions nunc pro tunc, appellant has not demonstrated any reasons why her previous failure to file exceptions should be excused. Appellant’s counsel had notice of the court’s verdict on or about November 2, 1976, and he has not explained either why he failed to file exceptions before the entry of the judgment on December 9, 1976, or why he failed to request permission to file late exceptions thereafter. Based upon the present record, we agree with the lower court that the failure to file timely exceptions or to move to file late exceptions, must be attributed to mere inadvertence, which is not a sufficient excuse. See E. J. McAleer & Co., Inc. v. Iceland Prods., Inc., 475 Pa. 610, 615, 381 A.2d 441, 444 (1977).

Since appellant failed to file exceptions to the verdict, her requests to strike or open the judgment entered on December 9, 1976, or to permit an appeal nunc pro tunc are of no practical significance. In any event, we have reviewed the record and have found no defect in the record or any other circumstance that convinces us that the lower court here abused its discretion in refusing to either open or strike the judgment or to permit an appeal nunc pro tunc.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 A.2d 1363, 269 Pa. Super. 361, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seven-springs-farms-inc-v-king-pasuperct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack