No. 1688 Philadelphia, 1981, Appeal from Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Cameron County, No. 63 November Term, 1975
George Stenhach, Coudersport, for appellants.
Gordon J. Daghir, St. Marys, for appellee.
Wieand, McEwen and Popovich, JJ.
[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 495]
In this appeal it is alleged that Pa.R.C.P. 218, the so-called "240 Day Rule",*fn1 now vacated, was invalid because it constituted
[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 496]
judicial legislation and was in conflict with Rule 1901 of the Rules of Judicial Administration. We are unable to consider these issues, however, because the appeal was not timely filed and must be quashed.
The order dismissing appellants' action was entered on March 2, 1981. A Notice of Appeal was not filed until June 12, 1981, more than three months after the order had been entered. This was untimely. See: Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).
Appellants seek to avoid the thirty day limit on the right of appeal by identifying the order appealed from as that which was entered on May 22, 1981. The latter order, however, merely dismissed an application to reconsider the order entered March 2, 1981.
"'Pennsylvania case law is absolutely clear that the refusal of a trial court to reconsider, rehear, or permit reargument of a final decree is not reviewable on appeal.'" Geek v. Smeck, 275 Pa. Super. 259, 261, 418 A.2d 711, 712 (1980) quoting Provident National Bank v. Rooklin, 250 Pa. Super. 194, 202, 378 A.2d 893, 897 (1977), allocatur denied, 250 Pa. Super. XXXV (1977). Accord: Hesson v. Weinrebe, 288 Pa. Super. 216, 218, 431 A.2d 1015, 1016 (1981); Grady v. Grady, 280 Pa. Super. 266, 267, 421 A.2d 715, 716 (1980);
[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 497]
failure to comply with Montgomery County ...