30.07.2013 Views

OPINION - The Philadelphia Courts

OPINION - The Philadelphia Courts

OPINION - The Philadelphia Courts

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

package. <strong>The</strong> trial court sustained appellees’ preliminary objections as “uncontested.”<br />

Appellants then filed an appeal of the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior<br />

Court upheld the trial court’s decision and found that the trial court did not err when it<br />

failed to consider appellants’ answer to the preliminary objections. <strong>The</strong> Superior Court<br />

stated:<br />

Appellants ignored critical filing procedures essential to<br />

proper motion court practice in <strong>Philadelphia</strong> County. Thus,<br />

Appellants did not ensure that their responses to Appellees'<br />

preliminary objections would be before the trial court for<br />

its consideration as Appellants simply did not follow the<br />

rules. <strong>The</strong>refore, Appellants cannot now complain that the<br />

trial court erred when it failed to consider their responses to<br />

Appellees' preliminary objections. Accordingly, we agree<br />

with the trial court that Appellants' blunder is not excusable<br />

and does not constitute trial court error.<br />

Schuylkill Navy, 1999 Pa. Super. at *P10, 728 A.2d at 968.<br />

Were it not for appellants in the case at bar filing their Motion for<br />

Reconsideration (to consider its Response to the Motion to Determine Preliminary<br />

Objections) in such a manner that the trial judge was assigned the Motion after losing<br />

jurisdiction, the Motion would have been considered on its merits, and at least appellants<br />

would have be given an opportunity to amend their counterclaim in the event the<br />

preliminary objections to the counterclaim were sustained on the merits. This Court<br />

suggests that the matter be remanded for further proceedings related to the preliminary<br />

objections, despite the procedural chaos created by appellants.<br />

Dated: December 13, 2005<br />

4<br />

BY THE COURT:<br />

______________________________<br />

HOWLAND W. ABRAMSON, J.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!