Rule 227.1. Post-Trial Relief.
(a) After trial and upon the written Motion for Post-Trial Relief filed by any party, the court may
(1) order a new trial as to all or any of the issues; or
(2) direct the entry of judgment in favor of any party; or
(3) remove a nonsuit; or
(4) affirm, modify or change the decision; or
(5) enter any other appropriate order.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by Pa.R.E. 103(a), post-trial relief may not be granted unless the grounds therefor,
(1) if then available, were raised in pre-trial proceedings or by motion, objection, point for charge, request for findings of fact or conclusions of law, offer of proof or other appropriate method at trial; and
(2) are specified in the motion. The motion shall state how the grounds were asserted in pre-trial proceedings or at trial. Grounds not specified are deemed waived unless leave is granted upon cause shown to specify additional grounds.
(c) Post-trial motions shall be filed within ten days after
(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to agree, or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or
(2) notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision in the case of a trial without jury.
If a party has filed a timely post-trial motion, any other party may file a post-trial motion within ten days after the filing of the first post-trial motion.
(d) A motion for post-trial relief shall specify the relief requested and may request relief in the alternative. Separate reasons shall be set forth for each type of relief sought.
(e) If a new trial and the entry of judgment are sought in the alternative, the court shall dispose of both requests. If the court directs the entry of judgment, it shall also rule on the request for a new trial by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the request for a new trial.
(f) The party filing a post-trial motion shall serve a copy promptly upon every other party to the action and deliver a copy to the trial judge.
(g) A motion for post-trial relief may not be filed in an appeal from the final adjudication or determination of a local agency or a Commonwealth agency as to which jurisdiction is vested in the courts of common pleas.
(h) A motion for post-trial relief shall be filed following a trial upon an appeal from the decision of viewers pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code.
(i) When an appellate court has remanded a case for further proceedings, a motion for post-trial relief relating to subsequent rulings in the trial court shall not be required unless
(1) the appellate court has specified that the remand is for a complete or partial new trial, or
(2) the trial court indicates in its order resolving the remand issues that a motion for post-trial relief is required pursuant to this rule.
Comment: Subdivision (a). The motion for post-trial relief replaces the following motions and exceptions: motion for new trial, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, motion upon the whole record after disagreement of a jury, motion in arrest of judgment, motion to remove a nonsuit and exceptions following the decision of the judge in a trial without jury.
The following rules provide for the filing of exceptions, e.g., Rule 1534 (exceptions to a fiduciary’s account), Rule 1569 (exceptions to a hearing officer’s report in partition), Rule 1920.55-2 (exceptions to a hearing officer’s report in an action for divorce), Rule 1910.12(e) (exceptions to a hearing officer’s report in an action for support), and Rule 3136(d) (exceptions to sheriff’s schedule of proposed distribution).
Subdivision (b) states two requirements for the granting of post-trial relief. First, the grounds for the relief requested must have been raised in pre-trial proceedings or at trial and, second, they must be stated in the motion. Under subdivision (b)(1), if no objection is made, error which could have been corrected in pre-trial proceedings, i.e., a ground for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or during trial by timely objection, may not constitute a ground for post-trial relief. It must be raised timely in pre-trial proceedings or during the trial, thus affording the court the opportunity to correct the error.
Pa.R.E. 103(a) provides that the specific ground for an overruled objection, or the substance of excluded evidence, need not be stated at or prior to trial, or without having made an offer of proof, if the ground of the objection, or the substance of the evidence sought to be introduced, was apparent from the context.
Under subdivision (b)(2), motions which set forth mere ‘‘boilerplate’’ language are specifically disapproved. Rather, the motion must state ‘‘the specific grounds therefor.’’ A post-trial motion must set forth the theories in support thereof ‘‘so that the lower court will know what it is being asked to decide.’’ Frank v. Peckich, 391 A.2d 624, 632-633 (Pa. Super. 1978).
Subdivision (c). A motion for post-trial relief may be filed following a trial by jury or a trial by a judge without a jury pursuant to Rule 1038. A motion for post-trial relief may not be filed to orders disposing of preliminary objections, motions for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment, or motions relating to discovery or other proceedings, which do not constitute a trial. See U.S. National Bank in Johnstown v. Johnson, 487 A.2d 809 (Pa. 1985).
A motion for post-trial relief may not be filed to matters governed exclusively by the rules of petition practice.
The filing of a motion for post-trial relief is prohibited by the following rules: Rule 1557 (order directing partition) and Rule 1930.2 (no post-trial practice in domestic relations matters).
Subdivision (g). See 2 Pa.C.S. § 101 for the definition of ‘‘local agency.’’
See 42 Pa.C.S. § 933(a)(1) providing for jurisdiction of appeals from determinations of particular Commonwealth agencies to be in the courts of common pleas.
Subdivision (h). Any distinction with respect to the filing of a motion for post-trial relief between jury and non-jury trials following an appeal from the decision of viewers in eminent domain proceedings is eliminated.
Historical Commentary The following commentary is historical in nature and represents statements of the Committee at the time of rulemaking:
EXPLANATORY COMMENT—1983 Introduction
The Judicial Code and the Judiciary Act Repealer Act (JARA) have repealed Acts of Assembly which formed the basis for the entry of compulsory nonsuits and post-trial practice. The Code and JARA contemplate that the subject matter of the repealed statutes shall be governed by general rules. These amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure supply the necessary procedure.
The amendments abolish the distinctions which have existed heretofore in post-trial practice. A party who seeks post-trial relief will do so by filing a Motion for Post-Trial Relief irrespective of whether the action is at law or in equity or whether the action is tried with or without a jury. New Rules 227.1 to 227.4 inclusive apply to all such actions.
A detailed analysis of the changes in practice effected by the amendments follows each rule.
Conforming Amendments
In view of the new consolidated post-trial practice under Rule 227.1, a number of conforming amendments are made to rules governing the actions in equity and for partition, the family law actions of support and divorce and actions involving minors and incompetents.
The amendment to Rule 1557 governing partition reverses the current practice of filing exceptions to an order directing partition. The amended rule specifically provides that exceptions to such an order shall not be filed. Rather, relief may be sought through an appeal in accordance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(a)(6), as indicated in the note to Rule 1557.
The term ‘‘exceptions’’ is used in the rules in contexts other than post-trial practice. No amendment is made to rules using the term in such other contexts. Thus under Rule 227, a party need not take ‘‘exception’’ to any ruling of the trial judge. A party must still file ‘‘exceptions’’ to an auditor’s report under Rule 1530, a master’s report under Partition Rule 1569, a hearing officer’s report under Support Rule 1910.12, a master’s report under Divorce Rule 1920.55 and a schedule of distribution under Execution Rule 3136.
Rule 227.1
Rule 227.1 is entirely new. It includes several subjects not previously covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subdivision (a) authorizes the court to grant post-trial relief upon motion. This provision is necessary because JARA has repealed the statutes which formerly provided that authorization. The rule specifies the relief which may be granted and does not alter the prior practice.
Subdivision (a) prescribes the filing of a ‘‘written Motion for Post-Trial Relief’’. Motions for New Trial, for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, and for Judgment Upon the Whole Record will no longer be filed following a trial by jury. Exceptions will no longer be filed following a trial by a judge without a jury or an equity trial. The relief heretofore available through these motions and exceptions remains available through the new Motion for Post-Trial Relief.
Subdivision (b) states two requirements for the granting of post-trial relief. First, the grounds for the relief requested must have been raised in pre-trial proceedings or at trial and, second, they must be stated in the motion.
Subdivision (b)(1) incorporates into the rule the principle of Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974), that basic and fundamental error is not a ground for a new trial in the absence of a timely objection at the trial. The rule extends the principle to all post-trial relief. A ground for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict may not be raised for the first time in the Motion for Post-Trial Relief. It must be raised timely in pre-trial proceedings or during the trial, thus affording the court the opportunity to correct the error.
In Yudacufski v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 499 Pa. 605, 454 A.2d 923 (1982), the Supreme Court noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure governing post-trial practice ‘‘do not specifically include a requirement that pre-trial rulings must be raised in post-trial motions in order to be preserved.’’ Subdivision (b) now contains such a provision.
Subdivision (b)(2) specifies the requisites of the motion for post-trial relief. It must state the specific grounds for the relief sought and ‘‘how the grounds were asserted in pre-trial proceedings or at trial.’’
In requiring the motion to state the specific grounds therefor, motions which set forth mere ‘‘boilerplate’’ language are specifically disapproved. A post-trial motion must set forth the theories in support thereof ‘‘so that the lower court will know what it is being asked to decide.’’ Frank v. Peckich, 257 Pa.Super. 561, 391 A.2d 624, 632-633 (1978).
The requirement that the motion state how the grounds were raised at trial indicates compliance with the requirements of Dilliplaine, supra, and subdivision (b)(1) that there be a timely objection in pre-trial proceedings or at the trial.
Under subdivision (c), the time for filing the post-trial motion remains unchanged at ten days. However, the rule also provides an instance in which the time for filing a post-trial motion may be extended beyond the initial ten day period. There are occasions when a party is displeased with the result of a trial but refrains from filing a post-trial motion unless a post-trial motion is filed by an opposing party. This strategy necessitates a close watch over the dockets, since the party will be foreclosed from filing a motion if the opposing party files its motion on the tenth day. To facilitate practice in this area, subdivision (c) provides that where a post-trial motion has been timely filed by one party, any other party has ten days following the filing of the first post-trial motion in which to file its own motion. As with the other provisions of Rule 227.1, this concept applies to jury, nonjury and equity trials.
Subdivision (d) continues the practice of permitting a party to request post-trial relief in the alternative. When a party elects to so proceed, separate reasons should be set forth in support of each type of relief requested. Again, the document should make the trial judge aware of each request for relief and the grounds in support thereof.
Subdivision (e) provides a rule of judicial economy when both a new trial and judgment are sought in an action. Subdivision (e) provides that the court shall dispose of both requests. Thereafter, if the action is appealed, the appellate court may make a final disposition of the matter. This provision avoids the procedural situation where a trial court grants judgment but fails to rule on the request for a new trial. The action is thereafter appealed and the appellate court must then remand for disposition of the request for new trial. Under subdivision (e), the appellate court would be able to remand the matter directly for a new trial or affirm the ruling of the lower court.
New subdivision (f) provides for the prompt service of copies of the post-trial motion upon every other party to the action and the delivery of a copy to the trial judge.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT—1985 The amendment of Rule 227.1(c)(2) to provide for the filing of a motion for post-trial relief within ten days after nonsuit in a non-jury or an equity trial clarifies, but does not change, existing practice. Although subdivision (c)(2) did not refer to the filing of a motion for post-trial relief after a nonsuit in those instances, subdivision (a)(3) clearly provides for the court upon a written motion to remove a nonsuit without reference to the nature of the trial. The addition of the reference to a nonsuit in subdivision (c)(2) removes any ambiguity that might arise with respect to the time in which a motion for post-trial relief must be filed following a nonsuit in a non-jury or equity trial.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT—1989 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated an amendment to Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1 governing post-trial relief clarifying practice under the rule in two respects. First, notes have been added to subdivisions (a) and (c) explaining the scope of the motion for post-trial relief and the range of actions and proceedings to which the motion applies. The text of these subdivisions is not changed so that practice and procedure under them remain unaffected.
Second, new subdivision (g) is added to the rule specifying the procedure in appeals from final determinations of certain government agencies. The Commonwealth Court has stated that there are no post-trial proceedings in ‘‘statutory appeal’’ proceedings unless mandated by local rule. This practice has caused confusion in several respects. In many cases, post-trial motions have been filed unnecessarily and have resulted in the loss of the right to appeal. In other cases, attorneys have filed motions for post-trial relief and appeals simultaneously because they were unable to discern the proper procedure.
New subdivision (g) prohibits post-trial proceedings in a statutory appeal. The decision of the court in all such cases will be a final, appealable order.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT—1995 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to post-trial practice have been promulgated, allowing parties to minimize post-trial delay and clarifying the procedure with regard to proceedings in eminent domain and the actions of mandamus and partition of real property.
I. Entry of Judgment upon Praecipe
a. Post-Trial Delay
Prior to the present amendment, parties to an action had no recourse when a motion for post-trial relief remained pending and undecided. The amendment to Rule 227.4 permits any party to an action to file a praecipe for judgment when a timely motion has been filed and remains undecided for more than one hundred twenty days after filing.
The rule is optional with the parties. If settlement negotiations are continuing, they may have little interest in a prompt appeal. If time is not of the essence, they may await the decision of the trial court. However, the rule provides the parties with the ability to ‘‘move the case along.’’
If a motion remains undecided and a praecipe for judgment is entered at the earliest permissible time, the maximum post-trial delay is one hundred thirty days, i.e., ten days in which to file the motion and one hundred twenty days in which to decide it. The potential delay inherent in Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701(b)(3) providing for reconsideration of an order is avoided by prohibiting reconsideration of the judgment. The judgment entered is effective as to all parties and all issues so that the case in its entirety is ready for the appellate process.
The rule does not provide an automatic limit upon the time in which the court may make its ruling. However, it does provide a time standard by which the parties and the court may proceed.
There is a rule which may operate to prevent the entry of judgment upon the expiration of the one hundred twenty day period. Rule 238(c)(3)(i) provides that if ‘‘a motion for post-trial relief has been filed under Rule 227.1 and a motion for delay damages is opposed, a judgment may not be entered until all motions filed under Rule 227.1 and this rule [Rule 238] have been decided.’’ A note has been added to call attention to the rule.
b. Waiver of Post-Trial Practice
A second amendment to Rule 227.4 has deleted the provision for entry of judgment upon filing a ‘‘waiver in writing of the right to file post-trial motions signed by all parties’’. Present Pennsylvania policy is to require the parties to give the trial court the opportunity to correct error through post-trial practice. It follows that post-trial practice should not be subject to waiver.
II. Eminent Domain
Case law had developed an inconsistent practice with respect to the filing of a post-trial motion following trial upon an appeal from the decision of viewers in eminent domain proceedings. Post-trial practice was required following a trial by jury but not after a trial by a judge without a jury. New subdivision (h) has been added to Rule 227.1 eliminating this distinction and requiring post-trial practice whether the trial be by jury or by judge.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT—1996 The note to Rule 227.1(c) has been amended by deleting the second paragraph referring to a case stated. This amendment was required by the abolition of the case stated by Rule 1038.2.
The amendment is technical in nature and does not affect practice or procedure.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT—2004 Prior to the present amendment, Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1(b) was inconsistent with Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 103(a). Civil Rule 227.1(b) required without exception that grounds for post-trial relief be raised in pre-trial proceedings or at trial. Evidence Rule 103(a), however, did not require that the specific ground for an erroneous evidentiary ruling be raised prior to or at trial if the ground was apparent from the context. The present amendment to Civil Rule 227.1 carves out an exception for matters within the scope of Evidence Rule 103(a), thereby eliminating the inconsistency between the two rules.
EXPLANATORY COMMENT—2015 In Newman Development Group of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi’s Family Markets, Inc. and Safeway, Inc., 52 A.3d 1233 (Pa. 2012), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania examined the provisions of Rule 227.1 to determine whether a party must file a motion for post-trial relief following the resolution by the trial court of matters remanded by an appellate court. While it concluded in that case that a motion for post-trial relief was not required because the remand proceeding, which relied on an existing record, was not a trial, even though the trial court drew a different conclusion from that record to comport with the appellate court’s directive, the Court held that Rule 227.1 is silent as to any procedure for post-trial relief when a matter has been remanded for further consideration by the trial court. Id. at 1251.
To close this gap, the Supreme Court has amended Rule 227.1 by adding new subdivision (i). Specifically addressing the remand context, the amendment would not require the filing of a motion for post-trial relief following the resolution of matters remanded by an appellate court except under the following circumstances: (1) the appellate court has specified that the remand is for a complete or partial new trial, or (2) the trial court states in its order resolving the issue remanded that a motion for post-trial relief is required in order to preserve those issues for appellate review.
The amendment is intended to give the practitioner certainty as to when a motion for post-trial relief is required in the remand context, and thus, to prevent waiver of those issues upon further appellate review. It is also intended to facilitate the underlying purpose of the rule, which is to allow the trial court to reconsider its determination and to make any corrections before it is appealed without inundating it with unnecessary motions.
Source The provisions of this Rule 227.1 adopted April 21, 1977, effective July 30, 1977, 7 Pa.B. 1169; amended through April 23, 1985, effective July 1, 1985, 15 Pa.B. 1726; amended December 19, 1989, effective January 1, 1990, 20 Pa.B. 176; amended July 28, 1995, effective January 1, 1996, 25 Pa.B. 3337; amended December 5, 1996, effective immediately, 26 Pa.B. 6068; amended December 16, 2003, effective July 1, 2004, 34 Pa.B. 9; amended July 21, 2004, effective immediately, 34 Pa.B. 4107; amended July 2, 2015, effective October 1, 2015, 45 Pa.B. 3801; amended August 8, 2023, effective October 1, 2023, 53 Pa.B. 5108. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (377863) to (377864) and (384755).
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 Code 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.
