Deek Investments v. Murray, F., et al (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S41042-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DEEK INVESTMENTS, LP IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FRANCIS W. MURRAY AND PATRICIA A. MURRAY APPEAL OF: FRANCIS X. MURRAY No. 1956 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered June 5, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s): 91-09071 BEFORE: BOWES, J., DONOHUE, J., and MUNDY, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED JULY 08, 2014 Appellant, Francis X. Murray, appeals pro se from the June 5, 2013 order denying his property claim filed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3207(b). After careful review, we affirm. The trial court held a non-jury trial in this matter on January 4 and [t]he trial of an interpleader by a judge sitting without a jury shall be in accordance with .P. 3216. The note to Rule 1038 incorporates the requirement of Rule 227.1 that post-trial motions must be filed within 10 See id. at 1038, Note; Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c)(2) (stating that post-trial motions must be filed within 10 days of J-S41042-14 the trial court filed its decision on June 5, 2013, and all parties were served with a copy of said order. Appellant did not file any post-trial motions in the See D.L. Forrey & Assocs., Inc. v. Fuel City Truck Stop, Inc., 71 A.3d 915, -trial motion are waived on appeal accord Lane Enters., Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54, 54 (Pa. 1998). We also note that on July 22, 2013, the trial court directed Appellant to file with the trial court and serve on the trial judge, a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Although Appellant timely filed said statement, the trial al Court Opinion, 9/5/13, 1-2 e record does not show that the Rule 1925(b) statement was served on the trial judge. Our Supreme Court has held that Rule 1925(b) is a bright-line rule and failure to comply will result in waiver of all issues on appeal. Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011). appeal are waived on this basis as well. See id. -2- As Appellant has J-S41042-14 waived for either failure to file post-trial motions below or to fully comply 5, 2013 order is affirmed. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/8/2014 -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.
