Mock, T. v. Adams, R. ( 2022 )

J-A06017-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TIMOTHY W. MOCK AND TRACY A. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MOCK : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellants :
:
:
v. :
:
: No. 905 WDA 2021
ROBERT D. ADAMS AND KAREN J. :
ADAMS, RICHARD L. CAMPBELL, :
ESQUIRE, CAMPBELL, MILLER, :
WILLIAMS, BENSON, ETTER & :
CONSIGLIO, INC., F/K/A MILLER, :
KISTLER, CAMPBELL, MILLER, :
WILLIAMS & BENSON, INC. :
Appeal from the Order Entered July 6, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County
Civil Division at No(s): 2011-00665
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., SULLIVAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 24, 2022
Timothy W. Mock and Tracy A. Mock (“the Mocks”) appeal from the order
granting partial summary judgment in favor of Robert D. Adams and Karen J.
Adams (“the Adamses”), Richard L. Campbell, Esquire (“Campbell”), and
Campbell, Miller, Williams, Benson, Etter & Consiglio, Inc., f/k/a Miller, Kistler,
Campbell, Miller, Williams & Benson, Inc. (“law firm”) (collectively
“Appellees”). We quash the appeal.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A06017-22
Given this disposition, we briefly summarize the factual history of this
appeal. The Mocks sold their business to the Adamses. The Adamses
defaulted on promissory notes related to the sale, and the Mocks entered two
confessed judgments against the Adamses. In 2007, the Mocks and the
Adamses entered into an agreement for the Adamses to transfer the business
back to the Mocks, and for the Mocks to mark the confessed judgments against
the Adamses as satisfied.
The Mocks commenced the underlying action and claimed the Adamses
breached the 2007 agreement by failing to pay certain tax debts owed by the
business before the Mocks entered satisfactions of the confessed judgments.
The Mocks also asserted claims of promissory estoppel and negligent
misrepresentation against the Adamses’ attorney, Campbell, and vicarious
liability against Campbell’s law firm.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the trial
court denied. On November 9, 2020, the Adamses filed a motion for
reconsideration of the denial of their summary judgment motion. On July 6,
2021, the trial court entered a partial summary judgment order which
precluded the Mocks from seeking damages for the entire amounts of the
confessed judgments. The order left intact the Mocks’ claims concerning the
tax debts.
On July 16, 2021, the Mocks filed an application for a determination of
finality pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(c), which the trial court granted on July 26,
2021. In its order, the trial court stated it was amending the July 6, 2021
-2-
J-A06017-22
order, upon a determination that it was “a final order for purposes of [the
Mocks] being able to take an appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(c).” Order,
7/26/21.
We initially consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See
Bailey v. RAS Auto Body, Inc., 85 A.3d 1064, 1067-68 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(noting that we may consider whether an order is appealable sua sponte).
Generally, “an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a
government unit or trial court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a).1 A final order is “any order
that (1) disposes of all claims and of all parties; or . . . (3) is entered as a final
order pursuant to paragraph (c) of this rule.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b).
The Order in question, which granted partial summary judgment in favor
of Appellees, is not a final order as it does not dispose of all claims or all
parties. In fact, all claims and parties remain, and the order only dismissed a
portion of the damages. Nevertheless, Rule 341(c) provides a mechanism by
which a non-final order may become appealable where the trial court expressly
determines “an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire
case.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(c). In making such a determination, the trial court must
consider: (1) whether there is a significant relationship between adjudicated
and unadjudicated claims; (2) whether there is a possibility that an appeal
____________________________________________
1 Other bases for this Court’s jurisdiction include an appeal from an
interlocutory order as of right, see Pa.R.A.P. 311; from a collateral order, see
Pa.R.A.P. 313; or from an interlocutory order by permission, see Pa.R.A.P.
312, 1311, see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b). However, those provisions do
not apply to the present order.
-3-
J-A06017-22
would be mooted by further developments; (3) whether there is a possibility
that the court or administrative agency will consider issues a second time; and
(4) whether an immediate appeal will enhance prospects of settlement.
Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note; see also Bailey, 85 A.3d at 1069 (noting that a court
“must consider all four factors when making a determination of finality”)
(citation omitted).
Here, the trial court’s determination of finality did not include an express
determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the
entire case. See Bailey, 85 A.3d at 1070. Nothing in the record indicates
that the trial court considered any of the factors necessary for a determination
of finality. Our review reveals no basis to conclude that (1) the trial court’s
decision to strike certain areas of damages bore a significant relationship to
the unadjudicated claims of liability; (2) further developments would render
the damages issues moot; (3) a later appeal from a final order would create
an injustice; and (4) an immediate appeal would enhance the prospects of
settlement. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s Rule 341(c)
certification does not establish this Court’s jurisdiction, and we quash this
appeal. See Bailey, 85 A.3d at 1070.
Appeal quashed.
-4-
J-A06017-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/24/2022
-5-