H.L. v. M.S. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A10025-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 H.L., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. M.S., Appellant No. 1933 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered October 4, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Civil Division, at No(s): 2013-4878 BEFORE: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and MUNDY, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY ALLEN, J.: FILED MAY 29, 2014 H.L. stands in loco parentis 2007), to file a custody complaint, and directing the parties to proceed to a custody conciliation at the earliest possible date. Because the appealability of an order involves our jurisdiction to hear an appeal, we may raise the issue sua sponte. Kensey v. Kensey, 877 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005). This Court has summarized: Under Pennsylvania Law, an appeal may be taken from: (1) a final order or an order certified by the trial court as a final order (Pa.R.A.P. 341); (2) an interlocutory order as of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311); (3) an interlocutory order by permission (Pa.R.A.P. 312; 1311; 42 Pa.C.S.A. ยง 702(b)); or a collateral order (Pa.R.A.P. 313). The question of the appealability of an order goes directly to the jurisdiction of the Court asked to review the order. A final order is any order that: (1) disposes of all claims and of all parties; or J-A10025-14 (2) any order that is expressly defined as a final order by statute; or (3) any order entered as a final order pursuant to subdivision (c) of this rule. Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). Subdivision (c) allows the trial court, in multi-claim or multi-party actions, to enter a final order as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims and parties upon an express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case, and also allows a party to apply for a determination of finality. Pa.R.A.P. 341(c). Furthermore, a custody order is considered final and appealable only if it is both: (1) entered after the court has completed its hearings on the merits; and (2) intended by the court to constitute a complete resolution of the custody claims pending between the parties. Moyer v. Gresh, 904 A.2d 958, 963 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted). dispose of all the claims since it does not decide the paramount issue of custody, and in fact specifically directs that further proceedings on the issue Id.; compare S.A. v. C.G.R., 856 A.2d 1248 as a final order by statute, the trial court did not expressly determine that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case, and Id.. In sum, because Mother appealed from an interlocutory order, and did not take the necessary steps for a finality determination, we quash her appeal. See id. at 963-64 (holding that the order denying biological -husband and remanding for a custody conciliation was not a final order). Appeal quashed. -2 - J-A10025-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/29/2014 -3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
