Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HELEN M. BEASLEY v. JAMES E. BEASLEY (09/28/84)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


filed: September 28, 1984.

HELEN M. BEASLEY
v.
JAMES E. BEASLEY, APPELLANT

No. 796 Philadelphia, 1982, Appeal from the Order of February 24, 1982 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil Division, No. 81-19616

COUNSEL

Richard A. Sprague and Michael Minkin, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Neil Hurowitz, King of Prussia, for appellee.

Spaeth, President Judge, and Montemuro and Cercone, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 334 Pa. Super. Page 511]

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court in a divorce proceeding filed by appellee-wife under the Divorce Code of 1980,*fn1 granting the request of appellee-wife for $3,500.00 in appraisal costs from appellant-husband. Appellee-wife urges us to quash the appeal as interlocutory. The lower court agreed with appellee that the order was interlocutory and non-appealable. Appellant-husband contends that the lower court abused its discretion in refusing to continue the hearing on the appellee's motion, in entering the order awarding appraisal fees in the absence of appellant and his counsel in derogation of due process, and in

[ 334 Pa. Super. Page 512]

    awarding the requested appraisal fees. Precedent supports the appealability of the instant order.*fn2

However, in this case, the docket reveals that no final order was entered on the docket following appellant's failure to file exceptions. See Pa.R.C.P. 1038(e) (on praecipe of party, prothonotary shall enter final judgment if no exceptions are filed timely).

Although in Sutliff v. Sutliff, supra, Carangelo v. Carangelo, 321 Pa. Superior Ct. 219, 467 A.2d 1333 (1983), and Dewalt v. Dewalt, 309 Pa. Superior Ct. 275, 455 A.2d 156 (1983), our court affirmed the order of the trial court on the theory that the appellant's failure to file exceptions constituted a waiver of the issues raised, the opinions in those cases do not reveal whether or not a final order was entered on the docket following the appellant's failure to file exceptions. In the instant case, the final order was not entered, and we are constrained to quash this appeal. See Van Ameringen v. Arcadia Co., Inc., 299 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 445 A.2d 837 (1982) (appeal must be quashed where no exceptions were filed and final judgment was not entered on the docket), and cases cited therein.*fn3

Appeal quashed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.