Appellants
from 157+ assessment appeal cases were allowed to appeal nunc pro tunc where
they improperly had filed a single consolidated appeal.
Property
owners were permitted to file amended appeals beyond the statutory appeal
period where they had jointly filed a single Notice of Appeal from the Board’s 157
separate decisions. They were allowed to
file individual amended appeals beyond the mandated statutory period for filing such appeals. The
issues raised and the facts involved in the 158 appeals were alleged to be
similar, and the Board allowed the appeals to be consolidated for hearing
purposes only. The Board ultimately denied the assessment appeals, and sent
individual notices of denial, along with individual notices of the right to
appeal to each of the Property Owners.
The defect
in this case is procedural, and therefore curable, not jurisdictional. As a general rule, ‘[t]aking one appeal from
separate judgments is not acceptable practice and is discouraged.’ In TCPF,
L.P. v. Skatell, 976 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2009), [our Superior] Court was
presented with the same procedural defect involved in the instant appeal, i.e.,
the appellant’s filing of a single notice of appeal from two separate trial
court orders and the subsequent filing of an untimely amended notice of appeal.
The Skatell Court denied the appellee’s motion to quash the appeal,
holding that ‘where . . . Appellant filed a timely, albeit discouraged,
appeal of multiple orders and filed a subsequent amended appeal, no fatal
defect exists and the mandates of judicial economy require that the appeal be
heard.’ Sulkava v. Glaston Finland Oy, 54 A.3d 884, 888 (Pa. Super.
2012) (citations omitted and emphasis added).
