Opinion
J.S59039/13 No. 911 EDA 2013
12-23-2013
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., LAFAYETTE AMBASSADOR BANK, v. HRISTOS G. DIMOU, ALSO KNOWN AS CHRIS G. DIMOU, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered May 1, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Civil Division No(s).: 2011-C-2248
BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA, and FITZGERALD, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Hristos G. Dimou, also known as Chris G. Dimou, appeals from the judgment entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Appellee, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Lafeyette Ambassador Bank. Appellant contends the trial court erred by, inter alia, not applying res judicata. We quash for lack of jurisdiction.
The facts are unnecessary to our disposition. A bench trial occurred on January 10, 2013. On February 15, 2013, the court found in favor of Appellee and adverse to Appellant and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Appellee. Appellant had not yet filed a post-trial motion. On February 25, 2013, Appellant filed a post-trial motion, which the trial court denied on February 28, 2013. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 22, 2013. On April 16, 2013, the Superior Court ordered Appellant to praecipe the trial court prothonotary to enter judgment. Order, 4/16/13. Appellant did not comply. The trial court never entered judgment after it denied Appellant's post-trial motion.
We state the following applicable law:
It is well-settled that an appeal from an order denying post-trial motions is interlocutory. Moreover, an appeal to this Court can only lie from judgments entered subsequent to the trial court's disposition of post-verdict motions, not from the order denying post-trial motions.Vance v. 46 and 2, Inc., 920 A.2d 202, 205 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2007) (punctuation and citations omitted); see also Moore v. Quigly , 168 A.2d 334, 336 (Pa. 1961) (holding judgment "entered before the time for filing a new trial motion ha[s] expired, is void and of no legal effect.").
Instantly, Appellant inexplicably failed to comply with this Court's April 16, 2013 order directing him to have the trial court prothonotary enter judgment. Further, the trial court's February 15, 2013 "judgment" is void, as it was premature. See Moore , 168 A.2d at 336. Because an appeal to this Court can lie only from a judgment entered subsequent to the disposition of Appellant's post trial motion, we are constrained to quash as we lack jurisdiction. See Vance , 920 A.2d at 205 n.2.
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. ____________________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary