From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shanahan v. Groen

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 12, 1997
456 Pa. Super. 32 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)

Opinion

Submitted November 26, 1996.

Filed February 12, 1997.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division, No. 2860 March Term, 1994, Moss, J.

Daniel Silver, Richboro, for appellants.

Edward H. Rubenstone, Bensalem, for appellees.

Before CAVANAUGH, CIRILLO, BECK, POPOVICH, JOHNSON, HUDOCK, FORD ELLIOTT, SAYLOR and EAKIN, JJ.


Terri and Joseph Shanahan appeal from the order that denied their motion to vacate a judgment of non pros. The trial court entered the judgment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 218 because the Shanahans' counsel failed to appear at the status call of the list for the assignment of a trial date. We reverse.

The Shanahans contend on appeal that the trial court: (1) lacked authority to enter a judgment of non pros based on their counsel's failure to appear at the status call of the list; and (2) abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the judgment of non pros.

Based upon this Court's recent Opinion in Gendrachi v. Cassidy, 455 Pa. Super. 518, 688 A.2d 1215 (1997) (en banc), we conclude that the trial court lacked authority to enter the judgment of non pros. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with Gendrachi.

Because of our resolution of the Shanahans' first contention, we need not address their remaining contention.

Order REVERSED. Case REMANDED. Jurisdiction RELINQUISHED.

CIRILLO, J., concurs in the result.


Summaries of

Shanahan v. Groen

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 12, 1997
456 Pa. Super. 32 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)
Case details for

Shanahan v. Groen

Case Details

Full title:Terri SHANAHAN and Joseph Shanahan, Appellants, v. Marcel R. GROEN and…

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 12, 1997

Citations

456 Pa. Super. 32 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)
689 A.2d 310

Citing Cases

Valle v. Caroline

Id. at 1217 ("Rule 218's sanction simply does not apply to this procedure."). See Shanahan v. Groen, 689 A.2d…