Hooker, P. v. Wagner, M. ( 2016 )

J-A20041-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
PEGGY HOOKER, SUBSTITUTED : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ADMINISTRATRIX C.T.A. OF THE WILL : PENNSYLVANIA
OF EDWARD C. WAGNER :
:
v. :
:
MARY B. WAGNER, A/K/A MARY B. :
SHAULIS, ROSE M. BLOUGH AND :
KENNETH E. BLOUGH, AND S&T BANK, :
:
APPEAL OF: JANET S. WAGNER AND :
JAMES R. WAGNER, JR. : No. 1720 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order September 29, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Civil Division, No(s): 5606 of 2008
BEFORE: BOWES, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2016
Janet S. Wagner and James R. Wagner (hereinafter
“Appellant/Intervenors”) appeal from the Order (1) denying their Petition to
intervene; and (2) disqualifying their counsel, Richard F. Flickinger, Esquire
(“Flickinger”), from representation. We quash the appeal.
On September 29, 2015, the trial court entered an Order granting the
Motion filed by Rose M. Blough and Kenneth E. Blough (hereinafter
“Defendants”) to disqualify Flickinger and dismiss the Petition to intervene
that Flickinger had filed on behalf of Appellant/Intervenors.
Appellant/Intervenors filed a timely Notice of Appeal, and a court-ordered
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
J-A20041-16
On appeal, Appellant/Intervenors raise the following issues for our
review:
1. Did the lower court err in disqualifying [Flickinger] from
further representation of [Appellant/Intervenors] in
determining how real estate should be distributed to heirs
because [Flickinger] had previously represented [Defendants’]
predecessor in title in the purchase of that real estate?
2. Is the disqualification of [Flickinger] a collateral issue from
which an appeal may be taken as of right?
Brief for Appellant/Intervenors at 4 (issues renumbered for ease of
disposition).
Initially, we must determine whether this appeal is properly before us.
Appellant/Intervenors challenge the trial court’s Order disqualifying
Flickinger from representation.1 An order disqualifying counsel is not an
appealable order. See Vaccone v. Syken, 899 A.2d 1103, 1105 (Pa. 2005)
(holding that an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case is an interlocutory
order, which is not immediately appealable). Accordingly, this appeal is not
properly before us. See id.Appeal quashed.
1
Appellant/Intervenors do not challenge the trial court’s Order to the extent
that it denied their Petition to intervene in the quiet title action.
-2-
J-A20041-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/15/2016
-3-