Opinion
J-A20041-16 No. 1720 WDA 2015
11-15-2016
PEGGY HOOKER, SUBSTITUTED ADMINISTRATRIX C.T.A. OF THE WILL OF EDWARD C. WAGNER v. MARY B. WAGNER, A/K/A MARY B. SHAULIS, ROSE M. BLOUGH AND KENNETH E. BLOUGH, AND S&T BANK, APPEAL OF: JANET S. WAGNER AND JAMES R. WAGNER, JR.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order September 29, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Civil Division, No(s): 5606 of 2008 BEFORE: BOWES, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Janet S. Wagner and James R. Wagner (hereinafter "Appellant/Intervenors") appeal from the Order (1) denying their Petition to intervene; and (2) disqualifying their counsel, Richard F. Flickinger, Esquire ("Flickinger"), from representation. We quash the appeal.
On September 29, 2015, the trial court entered an Order granting the Motion filed by Rose M. Blough and Kenneth E. Blough (hereinafter "Defendants") to disqualify Flickinger and dismiss the Petition to intervene that Flickinger had filed on behalf of Appellant/Intervenors. Appellant/Intervenors filed a timely Notice of Appeal, and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
On appeal, Appellant/Intervenors raise the following issues for our review:
1. Did the lower court err in disqualifying [Flickinger] from further representation of [Appellant/Intervenors] in determining how real estate should be distributed to heirs because [Flickinger] had previously represented [Defendants'] predecessor in title in the purchase of that real estate?Brief for Appellant/Intervenors at 4 (issues renumbered for ease of disposition).
2. Is the disqualification of [Flickinger] a collateral issue from which an appeal may be taken as of right?
Initially, we must determine whether this appeal is properly before us. Appellant/Intervenors challenge the trial court's Order disqualifying Flickinger from representation. An order disqualifying counsel is not an appealable order. See Vaccone v. Syken , 899 A.2d 1103, 1105 (Pa. 2005) (holding that an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case is an interlocutory order, which is not immediately appealable). Accordingly, this appeal is not properly before us. See id.
Appellant/Intervenors do not challenge the trial court's Order to the extent that it denied their Petition to intervene in the quiet title action.
Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/15/2016