Opinion
No. 1401 C.D. 2012
01-29-2013
Allen W. Carroll, Appellant v. Joan Decker, Commissioner of Records and Vargene Kingachen, Supervisor
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Allen W. Carroll (Carroll), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court's (trial court) June 18, 2012 order denying Carroll's claims for Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment. There are two issues before this Court: 1) whether Carroll's failure to file post-trial motions resulted in a waiver of all issues; and, if not, 2) whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Pennsylvania law did not permit Carroll's document to be recorded with the City of Philadelphia's Department of Records (Department). Because we find that Carroll has waived all issues, we dismiss his appeal.
On January 10, 2011, Carroll attempted to record what he describes as a "common law lien" (Document) for three parcels of land located in Philadelphia. The Department refused to record the Document because it was not in compliance with Pennsylvania recording laws, specifically Section 1 of the Recording Act of 1925, and Section 1 of the Recording Act of 1931. In addition, the Document did not contain a proper acknowledgment as required by Section 1 of the Uniform Acknowledgment Act. Finally, there was no proof offered to establish consent by the property owners to burden the subject properties, or a prior legal determination otherwise authorizing liens to be placed upon the properties.
Act of May 12, 1925, P.L. 613, as amended, 21 P.S. § 351.
Act of April 24, 1931, P.L. 48, 21 P.S. § 356.
Act of July 24, 1941, P.L. 490, as amended, 21 P.S. § 291.1.
On April 6, 2011, Carroll filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Petition) with this Court, seeking to require the Department to record the Document. This Court subsequently transferred the matter to the trial court. Carroll also sought Declaratory Judgment that the Department's refusal to record the Document violated his constitutional rights. A bench trial was held on June 18, 2012 and, by order of the same date, the trial court denied Carroll's Petition and Declaratory Judgment claim. Carroll did not file post-trial motions. On July 5, 2012, Carroll appealed to this Court.
"Our scope of review of declaratory judgment actions and actions in mandamus is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion, and whether substantial evidence exists to support its findings." Twp. of Forks v. Forks Twp. Mun. Sewer Auth., 759 A.2d 47, 51 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). "When reviewing an issue of law in a declaratory judgment action, an appellate court's standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary." Wells Fargo Bank v. Dauphin Cnty. Gen. Auth., 19 A.3d 14, 19 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). --------
Carroll argues that the trial court erred when it refused his Petition and denied his request for Declaratory Judgment. Appellees assert that Carroll has waived all issues on appeal due to his failure to file post-trial motions.
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1(c) provides, "[p]ost-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." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that, "[u]nder [Pa.R.C.P. No.] 227.1, a party must file post-trial motions at the conclusion of a trial in any type of action in order to preserve claims that the party wishes to raise on appeal." Chalkey v. Roush, 569 Pa. 462, 469, 805 A.2d 491, 496 (2002) (emphasis added). The Court has further held that "[i]f an issue has not been raised in a post-trial motion, it is waived for appeal purposes." L.B. Foster Co. v. Lane Enters., Inc., 551 Pa. 307, 307, 710 A.2d 55, 55 (1998). This Court has similarly maintained "[w]here a party fails to file timely post-trial motions after a bench trial, no issues are preserved for this Court to review." Liparota v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund, 722 A.2d 253, 256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999); see also P.S. Hysong v. Lewicki, 931 A.2d 63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); In re Contest of Election of November 4, 2003, 858 A.2d 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004); Borough of Harveys Lake v. Heck, 719 A.2d 378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
Here, because Carroll failed to file post-trial motions, no issues were preserved for this Court's review. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2013, Allen W. Carroll's appeal from the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court's June 18, 2012 order is dismissed.