HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-3089 CivilCARL D. HABIG and
ANNE H. HABIG,
Plaintiffs
Vo
MARY JANE SPENCER, t/a
and d/b/a WINDSOR RIDGE
HOMES, and JOHN H.
HOCKER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 3089 CIVIL 1992
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
BEFORE SHEELY, P.J.,' HOFFER and OLER, JJ.
Oler, J., February ~, 1996.
In this building construction case, Plaintiffs have appealed
to the Superior Court from a judgment~ in their favor of
$30,726.28, plus interest at the legal rate from September 1, 1991.
The basis for the appeal is that the trial judge, who heard the
case non-jury, should have awarded the Plaintiffs more than he
did.2 The litigation arose out of the construction of Plaintiffs'
home. MotiOns for post-trial relief filed by both parties were
denied by this court en banc3 on the basis of the opinion
accompanying the adjudication.
* President Judge Sheely did not
consideration of or decision in this case.
participate in the
~ In their notice of appeal, Plaintiffs characterize the
appeal as being from an order of court dated December 20, 1995,
which denied motions of the parties for post-trial relief. The
notice, however, correctly notes that the order was reduced to
final judgment, and it is presumed that the Superior Court will
treat the matter as a proper appeal from a final judgment. Cf.
Mancini v. Morrow, 312 Pa. Super. 192, 458 A.2d 580 (1983).
2 See Plaintiffs' Concise Statement of Matters Complained of
on Appeal, filed February 1, 1996.
See Pa. R.C.P. 227.2.
The opinion accompanying the adjudication contained detailed
findings of fact in narrative form, a discussion of applicable law
and its application to the facts, and an appendix specifying the
components of the computation which resulted in Plaintiffs' award.
As a general rule, the findings of a trial judge in a non-jury case
are ultimately entitled to the same weight and effect as the
verdict of a jury. Mancini v. Morrow, 312 Pa. Super. 192, 458 A.2d
580 (1983).
In this case, it was believed by the court en banc that the
findings of the trial judge were supported by the evidence, that no
error occurred in the application of the law, and that the issues
raised by the parties in their post-trial motions were adequately
addressed in the opinion accompanying the adjudication. For
purposes of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)
(requirement of statement of reasons for order below), therefore,
reference is made herein to the opinion of the trial judge dated
September 13, 1995.
Andrew C. Sheely, Esq.
James D. Bogar, Esq.
1 West Main Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Sally J. Winder, Esq.
701 East King Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Attorney for Defendants
: rc