Com. v. Auric Investment Holdings, LLC ( 2021 )

J-A29003-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
AURIC INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC :
:
Appellant : No. 1998 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 15, 2019,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-35-SA-0000081-2019.
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:FILED JANUARY 26, 2021
Because subject matter jurisdiction over this case lies exclusively with
the Commonwealth Court, I respectfully dissent.
As this Court recently noted:
Subject matter jurisdiction “relates to the competency of the
individual court ... to determine controversies of the general class
to which a particular case belongs.” Green Acres Rehab. &
Nursing Ctr. v. Sullivan, 113 A.3d 1261, 1268 (Pa. Super.
2015). “The want of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
questioned at any time. It may be questioned either in the trial
court, before or after judgment, or for the first time in an appellate
court, and it is fatal at any stage of the proceedings, even when
collaterally involved ....” In re Patterson's Estate, 341 Pa. 177,
19 A.2d 165, 166 (1941). Moreover, it is “well settled that a
judgment or decree rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction
of the subject matter or of the person is null and void ....” Com.
ex rel. Howard v. Howard, 138 Pa. Super. 505, 10 A.2d 779,
781 (1940). The question of subject matter jurisdiction may be
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A29003-20
raised at any time, by any party, or by the court sua sponte.
Grimm v. Grimm, 149 A.3d 77, 82 (Pa. Super. 2016).
Strasburg Scooters, LLC v. Strasburg Rail Road, Inc., 210 A.3d 1064,
1067-68 (Pa. Super. 2019).
The majority acknowledges that this case properly lies in the
Commonwealth Court under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(4)(a)(B), (Majority at *1,
n.1), yet my colleagues dispose of the case anyway. This court sitting en banc
last year observed that we should first address whether we have jurisdiction
before proceeding with any case. Mohn v. Bucks County Republican
Committee, 218 A. 3d 927, 933 (Pa. Super. 2018). Indeed, we specifically
overruled a case to the extent it stood for the proposition that this Court could
entertain appeals involving matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth Court. Id. at 934.
Although I agree with the majority’s analysis and I appreciate the desire
to resolve cases expeditiously, because this case clearly lies within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court, I believe we should follow
our en banc precedent and transfer this matter to the Commonwealth Court.
-2-