LAW.coLAW.co

Rosemarie MATCZAK, Appellant, v. Edward MATCZAK

Superior Court of Pennsylvania1980-02-01No. No. 2671
275 Pa. Super. 164418 A.2d 663

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellee filed an action in assumpsit against appellant and the matter proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrators ruled in favor of appellee and against appellant in the amount of $1,000. Appellee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County and, after a trial before a judge sitting without a jury, a decision was entered in his favor in the amount of $4,200. Appellant did not file exceptions to the decision of the court below within ten days as required by Pa.R.Civ.Pro., No. 1038. Instead, appellant filed a direct appeal to this court some twenty days after the decision.

The appeal must be quashed. See Blake v. Mayo Nurs. & Convales. Home, 245 Pa.Super. 274, 369 A.2d 400 (1976). Appellant argues that she could not file timely exceptions because the transcript of testimony was not available. Appellant might have filed a petition with the lower court, asking that it extend the ten day period because the transcript was unavailable. See E. J. McAleer & Co., Inc. v. Iceland Prods., 475 Pa. 610, 381 A.2d 441 (1977). However, appellant filed no such petition until after she had appealed to this court.

The appeal is quashed.