Title 210—APPELLATE PROCEDURE
PART I. RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
[ 210 PA. CODE CH. 17 ]
Order Amending Note to Rule 1701 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure; No. 224 Appellate Procedural Rules Doc.
[43 Pa.B. 2271]
[Saturday, April 27, 2013]
And Now, this 9th day of April, 2013, upon the recommendation of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published for public comment at 41 Pa.B. 4529 (August 20, 2011):
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that the Note to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701 is amended in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and the amendments herein shall be effective to appeals and petitions for review filed 30 days after adoption.
TITLE 210. APPELLATE PROCEDURE
PART I. RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE II. APPELLATE PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 17. EFFECT OF APPEALS; SUPERSEDEAS AND STAYS
Rule 1701. Effect of Appeal Generally.
* * * * *
Official Note: The following statutory provisions relate to supersedeas generally:
42 Pa.C.S. § 702(c) (supersedeas) provides that except as otherwise prescribed by general rule, a petition for permission to appeal under that section shall not stay the proceedings before the lower court or other government unit, unless the lower court or [other] other government unit or the appellate court or a judge thereof shall so order. See also Rule 1313 (effect of filing petition).
42 Pa.C.S. § 5105(e) (supersedeas) provides that an appeal shall operate as a supersedeas to the extent and upon the conditions provided or prescribed by law, and that unless a supersedeas is entered no appeal from an order concerning the validity of a will or other instrument or the right to the possession of or to administer any real or personal property shall suspend the powers or prejudice the acts of the appointive judicial officer, personal representative or other person acting thereunder.
Subdivision (a) codifies a well-established principle. See e.g., Merrick Estate, 432 Pa. 450, 454, 247 A.2d 786, 787 (1968); Corace v. Balint, 418 Pa. 262, 275-76, 210 A.2d 882, 889 (1965)[; Gilbert v. Lebanon Val. St. Ry. Co., 303 Pa. 213, 154 Atl. 302 (1931); Drabant v. Cure, 274 Pa. 180, 118 Atl. 30 (1922); Silver v. Edelstein, 266 Pa. 531, 109 Atl. 679 (1920)]. Rule 5102 saves the provisions of Section 426 of [The] the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act (77 P. S. § 871), which permit a rehearing by the agency under certain circumstances during the pendency of an appeal. Rule [311(e)] 311(h) (further proceedings in lower court) provides that Subdivision (a) is not applicable where an appeal as of right is taken from interlocutory orders relating to attachments, [injuctions] injunctions, etc., thus making clear that the procedure for seeking appellate review of these collateral matters does [no] not impair the power of the lower court to continue with the case proper.
Subdivision (b)(1) sets forth an obvious power of the lower court or agency under these rules[, but is not intended to permit fundamental corrections in the record. See Corabi v. Curtis Pub. Co., 437 Pa. 143, 150, 262 A.2d 665, 668 (1970)] to take actions to preserve the status quo and to clarify or correct an order or verdict. The power to clarify or correct does not extend to substantive modifications. Pa. Indus. Energy Coalition v. Pennsylvania PUC, 653 A.2d 1336, 1344-45 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), aff'd, 543 Pa. 307, 670 A.2d 1152 (1996). Examples of permissible actions to preserve the status quo are those ''auxiliary to the appellate process, such as a supersedeas or injunction.'' Id. Examples of permissible corrections are ''non-substantial technical amendments to an order, changes in the form of a decree, and modification of a verdict to add prejudgment interest.'' Id. at 1344. ''Such actions have no effect on the appeal or petition for review and cannot prompt a new appealable issue.'' Id. at 1345.
Among the permissible ''corrections'' is the addition or modification of contractual or statutory prejudgment interest, which is an element of contract damages. In such cases, the award of such interest is mandatory and not discretionary. TruServ Corp. v. Morgan's Tool & Supply Co. Inc., Pa. , 39 A.3d 253, 264 (2012). Accordingly, even though the amount of a verdict is changed by the addition of prejudgment interest, the verdict has been ''corrected'' and not ''modified.''
The Supreme Court has held that, so long as a motion for attorneys' fees has been timely filed, a trial court may act on that motion under subdivision (b)(1) even after an appeal has been taken. Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 613 Pa. 371, 34 A.3d 1, 48 (2011). Thus, unlike the court actions discussed in Pa. Indus. Energy Coalition, an award of attorneys' fees constitutes a separately appealable order that would be reviewable upon filing of a timely separate notice of appeal, measured from the date the fee award order was entered.
Generally an appeal does not operate as a supersedeas of government agency action.
* * * * *
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 13-761. Filed for public inspection April 26, 2013, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.