Full Opinion

J-A18002-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 TOM R. VICKERY, INDIVIDUALLY AND : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE : PENNSYLVANIA OF TONI ANN VICKERY : : Appellant : : : v. : : No. 953 WDA 2025 : JOSEPH L. LANGIANESE, MOLLY J. : COLESTRO, TINA M. SLAVEN, KAREN : LANGIANESE, CNB BANK AND WELLS : FARGO ADVISORS AND BRADFORD : CITY BEERS, INC., F/K/A BURNS : BROS., INC. : Appeal from the Order Entered June 30, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Civil Division at No(s): 286 CD 2023 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and LANE, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: October 29, 2026 Tom R. Vickery appeals from the order entered by the McKean County Court of Common Pleas on June 30, 2025 that denied Vickery’s motion to modify a March 11, 2025 order, and deleted a portion of an order entered on September 19, 2024. We remand for the court to clarify the procedural posture of this matter. This case involves a dispute over ownership and control of a Pennsylvania business corporation known as Bradford City Beers, Inc. However, the procedural posture of this case and our jurisdiction is not clear from the record. Briefly, Vickery filed a petition for declaratory judgment J-A18002-26 involving the ownership of the stock and assets of Bradford City Beers. Bradford City Beers had been formerly owned by Michael J. Langianese, Jr. Mr. Langianese died in 2012 and stock in the corporation passed by inheritance in equal shares to his five children, including Vickery’s late wife. The instant dispute involves discussions that occurred in August 2018, regarding Vickery and his wife obtaining assets of the corporation to continue running the beverage distribution portion of the corporation. Preliminarily, we must determine whether this appeal is properly before us, as “[t]he appealability of an order directly implicates the jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order.” See Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). “[T]his Court has the power to inquire at any time, sua sponte, whether an order is appealable.” Id. (citation omitted). It is well-settled that “[a]n appeal may be taken from: (1) a final order or an order certified as a final order; (2) an interlocutory order as of right; (3) an interlocutory order by permission; or (4) a collateral order.” In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374, 377 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The record does not reflect an order either granting or denying the declaratory judgment. The order from which Vickery appeals denies his motion to modify one order and deletes a portion of a September 29, 2026, order that, in pertinent part, permitted him to use and trade in the Bradford City Beer name. -2- J-A18002-26 It is not clear whether we have jurisdiction because it is uncertain if and when there has been a final order, an injunctive order, or something else that would provide jurisdiction in the Superior Court. Notably, Vickery cites to Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4) to establish this Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal. Under this rule, an interlocutory appeal may be taken as of right from an “order that grants or denies, modifies or refuses to modify, continues or refuses to continue, or dissolves or refuses to dissolve an injunction …” See Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4). Upon review of the record, it is not clear that the order appealed from had anything to do with an injunction. We therefore remand for a period of 30 days and direct the trial court to clarify the record as to the procedural posture of this case, and more specifically, the status of the order from which the appeal was taken. Case remanded. Jurisdiction retained. -3-