Mental Health Assoc. v. Biggins, T. ( 2016 )

J-S70030-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA
v.
THOMAS A. BIGGINS
Appellant No. 2990 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order July 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2015-134-08
BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2016
Thomas A. Biggins appeals from the order entered on July 21, 2015,1
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, granting him in forma
pauperis (IFP) status regarding filing fees only.2 In this timely appeal,
Biggins argues the trial court improperly limited the scope of his IFP status
and that the order is appealable as it effectively denies him access to the
courts. After a thorough review of the Appellant’s brief,3 Appellant’s
statement of why the appeal should not be quashed as interlocutory,
____________________________________________
1
The order was dated July 17, 2015, but was not entered until July 21,
2015.
2
Pa.R.C.P. 240(c)(3) provides the court may deny an IFP petition in whole
or in part.
3
The appellee opted not to file a brief in this matter.
J-S70030-16
relevant law, and the certified record, we agree with the trial court that the
order is interlocutory and quash the appeal.
Although the resolution of this matter is straightforward, a recitation of
the facts and procedural history taken from the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion will be helpful to provide the context for our decision.
The question presented by this appeal is whether this Court
erred by granting Thomas Biggins’ Petition and Affidavit for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with respect to filing fees
only.
The case underlying the instant appeal arises from a landlord
tenant dispute. On June 3, 2015, the Honorable Margaret A.
Hunsicker granted the Mental Health Association of Southeastern
Pennsylvania possession of the property located at 538 Dekalb
Street, Apartment 1-B, Norristown, Pennsylvania. On June 15,
2015 [Biggins] filed a Motion to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro
Tunc with this Court, alleging that the Magisterial District Court
[MDC] identified the date of disposition as June 2, 2015, rather
than June 3, 2015, and that the Prothonotary of Montgomery
County rejected the appeal as untimely when [Biggins]
attempted to file it on Monday, June 15, 2015. Also on June 15,
2015, [Biggins] filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
This Court granted that petition with respect to filing fees only.
On June 25, 2015, this Court granted Biggins’ Motion to File
Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc.
On July 15, 2015, the Mental Health Association of Southeastern
Pennsylvania filed a Motion to Strike Appeal for Failure to Timely
File Notice of Appeal as [Biggins] had not filed an appeal since
this Court granted [Biggins] permission to do so nunc pro tunc.
On July 16, 2015, [Biggins] filed a Second Motion to File Notice
of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc. [4] Simultaneously, [Biggins] filed the
____________________________________________
4
The Mental Health Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania withdrew its
motion to strike and did not oppose Biggins’ second motion for leave to file
appeal nunc pro tunc.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S70030-16
Petition and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis at
issue in this appeal. As with the first petition to proceed in forma
pauperis, this Court granted the IFP Petition with respect to filing
fees only by an Order dated July 17, 2015. On July 24, 2015
Biggins filed a motion to amend the July 17, 2015 Order to
include the statement specified in 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b),[5] which
this Court denied by its August 7, 2015 Order. [Biggins] now
appeals this Court’s Order of July 17, 2015.[6]
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion at 1-2.
A final order disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable as
of right. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). As a general rule, interlocutory appeals are
not from final orders and are not appealable. There are certain exceptions
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
5
42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b) states, in toto:
(b) Interlocutory appeals by permission.-- When a court or
other government unit, in making an interlocutory order in a
matter in which its final order would be within the jurisdiction of
an appellate court, shall be of the opinion that such order
involves a controlling question of law as to which there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an
immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the matter, it shall so state in such
order. The appellate court may thereupon, in its discretion,
permit an appeal to be taken from such interlocutory order.
42 Pa.C.S. 702(b).
6
The trial court further stated:
This Court granted [Biggins’] Second Motion to File Notice of
Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc by an Order dated October 16, 2015. On
October 26, 2015, [Biggins] filed an appeal of the Magisterial
District Court’s June 3, 2015 judgment in the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas.
Trial Court Opinion at 2.
-3-
J-S70030-16
to that general rule. See Pa.R.A.P. 311, regarding interlocutory appeals as
of right. Orders regarding IFP status are not listed among the Rule 311
exceptions. See Goldstein v. Haband Co., Inc., 814 A.2d 1214, 1219 n.2
(Pa. Super. 2002) (Where an order denying an IFP application does not put
the litigant out of court, the order is interlocutory and not immediately
appealable as of right.). Biggins sought to have the order declared
appealable by seeking to have the trial court declare it so pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S. § 702(b); however, the trial court declined. Here, the order granting
IFP status does not, facially, dispose of the claims or parties at issue in the
underlying matter. Accordingly, by traditional standards, the order is not
appealable.
However, when an IFP order has the practical consequence of putting
a party out of court, it becomes an appealable order. See Grant v. Blaine,
868 A.2d 400 (Pa. 2005). Biggins claims the instant IFP order put him out
of court as a practical matter in two ways. First, the order only provided him
relief from paying the initial filing fee, so he must still pay all other
applicable fees. Second, the order does not apply to costs, thereby
preventing him from ordering the notes of testimony from the June 25, 2015
hearing, which he claims he requires to prosecute his appeal. We disagree.
It is undisputed the order in question granted Biggins IFP status as to
filing fees only. Clearly, he was able to file his appeal from the magisterial
district court (MDC) decision in favor of Mental Health Associates of
Southeastern Pennsylvania. In fact, Biggins has done so. There is no
-4-
J-S70030-16
indication that Biggins has attempted to file any other documents with the
prothonotary, but has been unable to do so pursuant to the IFP order.
Nonetheless, although Biggins appears to believe the IFP order applied only
to the initial filing fee, the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion states
Biggins’ IFP status applies with respect to “filing fees”, which suggests
ongoing IFP status as to filing documents with the prothonotary.7
Accordingly, we see nothing in the order or trial court opinion that so limits
Biggins’ IFP status. Therefore, Biggins has not been put out of court by this
aspect of the IFP order.
Additionally, Biggins claims he is out of court because the trial court’s
order has made it impossible for him to obtain the notes of testimony from
the June 25, 2015 hearing regarding his application for leave to file his
appeal from the MDC decision nunc pro tunc. Biggins argues he requires
these notes of testimony to continue his appeal At the June 25, 2015
hearing, the trial judge informed Biggins his motion for leave to file nunc pro
tunc was unopposed and an order would be issued allowing him to file his
appeal. Subsequently, the trial judge not only granted Biggins leave to file
his appeal nunc pro tunc, but also granted him the same IFP status that had
originally been granted. Biggins prevailed at the June 25, 2015 hearing,
____________________________________________
7
IFP status is subject to ongoing certification of entitlement to said status.
See Pa.R.C.P. 240(e).
-5-
J-S70030-16
obtaining permission to file his appeal from the MDC decision nunc pro tunc.
Accordingly, this argument is irrelevant.
Our review of the record confirms that Biggins has not been put out of
court, either actually or practically. The trial court has declined to certify the
interlocutory order as one ripe for immediate appeal. In light of this, Biggins
has improperly appealed from an interlocutory order and the appeal is
therefore quashed.
Appeal Quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/17/2016
-6-