Full Opinion

J-A27002-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 KERRI FOLEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : WOODLOCH PINES, WOODLOCH : No. 677 EDA 2026 HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, : WOODLOCH RESORT D/B/A : WOODLOCH PINES RESORT, JOHN : DOES #1-10, AND JANE DOES #1-10 : Appeal from the Order Entered January 21, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Civil Division at No(s): 2025-00530 BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and LANE, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED OCTOBER 29, 2026 Kerri Foley appeals the January 21, 2026 order sustaining the preliminary objections filed by Woodloch Pines, Woodloch Hospitality Corporation, Woodloch Resort d/b/a Woodloch Pines Resort, John Does #1- 10, and Jane Does #1-10 (collectively “Appellees”), and dismissing the civil action. As the appeal is untimely filed, we quash. The trial court summarized the procedural history as follows: This matter stems from a complaint filed by [Appellant] on August 11, 2025, alleging that [Appellees] breached a duty of care owed to [her], resulting in injuries she sustained while participating in a water-skiing activity on or about August 20, 2023. Nothing else was filed in the docket until October 6, 2025, when [Appellant] filed a praecipe to reinstate civil action complaint. [Appellees] filed preliminary objections to [the] complaint on November 13, 2025, maintaining that, since the J-A27002-26 statute of limitations passed before [Appellant] served [Appellees] with the complaint—and had passed before [Appellant] even attempted to do so—the complaint was now barred by the statute of limitations. The court issued an order on November 14, 2025, requiring the parties to submit briefs on [the] preliminary objections and scheduling argument for January 8, 2026. [Appellant] filed her response in opposition and accompanying memorandum of law on December 4, 2025. . . . On January 21st 2026 the court issued an order sustaining [Appellees’] preliminary objections and dismissing [the] complaint. . . . On March 4, 2026, [Appellant] filed a notice of appeal of the court’s January 21, 2026 order. Trial Court Opinion, 4/20/26 at 1-2 (cleaned up, unnecessary capitalization omitted). Appellant complied with the trial court’s directive to file a concise statement of errors complained about in appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). She reiterates these claims in her brief as follows: 1. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by [sustaining] preliminary objections . . . against [Appellant] for failure to effectuate service where [Appellant] made a good faith effort to serve [Appellees]? 2. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by misapplying the good faith standard governing service of process, despite [Appellant’s] diligent efforts to effectuate service? 3. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in dismissing the action where [Appellant] did not attempt to stall the judicial process and [Appellees] suffered no prejudice from any delay in service? 4. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in sustaining [Appellees’] preliminary objections and dismissing [Appellant’s] complaint pursuant to Lamp v. Heyman[, when Appellant] timely filed the action within the statute of limitations and made good-faith efforts to effectuate service by reinstating -2- J-A27002-26 the complaint, thereby tolling the statute[, and a]ny delay in service was minimal, resulted from an administrative error promptly corrected upon notice, and did not reflect an intent to stall the judicial process. Appellant’s brief at 4-5. (unnecessary capitalization omitted). We quash this appeal because it was not timely filed. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 903(a), a party must appeal a final order within thirty days of its entry. Rule of Appellate Procedure 108(b) further prescribes that the date of entry of a civil order “shall be the date on which the clerk [of court] makes the notation in the docket that written notice of entry of the order has been given as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(b).”1 In Carr v. Michuck, 234 A.3d 797, 805-806 (Pa.Super. 2020), this Court indicated that, ideally “[a] prothonotary should make a notation that specifically states, for example, ‘Rule 236 notice ____________________________________________ 1 Rule 236 provides as follows: (a) The prothonotary shall immediately give written notice of the entry of .... (2) any other order or judgment to each party's attorney of record or, if unrepresented, to each party. The notice shall include a copy of the order or judgment. .... (b) The prothonotary shall note in the docket the giving of the notice and, when a judgment by confession is entered, the mailing of the required notice and documents. Pa.R.Civ.P. 236. -3- J-A27002-26 provided on’ followed by the date the notice was given, in order to comply with the notification mandate and procedural requirement of Rule 236.” We continued, “[a]nything short of such a notation constitutes a failure by the prothonotary to comply with the notification mandate and procedural requirement of Rule 236, and is a breakdown in court operations.” Id. Instantly, the prothonotary entered the underlying order for the purpose of Rule 108 on January 21, 2026, as evidenced by the docket notation “served 1/21/26.” To the extent that this notation is not the model example proposed in Carr, the entry does not fall short of compliance because it obviously fulfilled the Rule’s purpose of ensuring that the parties obtained written notice of the order. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(a) and (b) (“The prothonotary shall immediately give written notice of the entry of” the order and “note in the docket the giving of the notice.”). Indeed, seeing that Black’s Law Dictionary defines “serve” as either “To make legal delivery of” or “To present with a notice or process as required by law,” the reasonable meaning of “served 1/21/26” connotes that written notice was delivered on that date. See Black’s Law Dictionary, at 1372 (Seventh Edition 1999). As the docket includes the January 21, 2026 notation in accordance with Rule 236(b) that the order was served on that date, Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on March 4, 2026, forty-two days later, is untimely. Appeal quashed. Case removed from the argument list. -4- J-A27002-26 Date: 10/29/2026 -5-