mailbox rule in Pennsylvania

1999Compare Commonwealth v. Jones, 549 Pa. 58 , 700 A.2d 423 (1997); Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 546 Pa. 115 , 683 A.2d 278 (1996); Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287 (Pa.Super.1998); Commonwealth v. Coo per, 710 A.2d 76 (Pa.Super.1998) (collectively applying' a mailbox rule for filing purposes if the litigant is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated). ¶ 7 We note that the filing requirements of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 are jurisdictional and may not be ignored.

1999Compare Commonwealth v. Jones, 549 Pa. 58 , 700 A.2d 423 (1997); Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 546 Pa. 115 , 683 A.2d 278 (1996); Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287 (Pa.Super.1998); Commonwealth v. Coo per, 710 A.2d 76 (Pa.Super.1998) (collectively applying' a mailbox rule for filing purposes if the litigant is proceeding pro se and is incarcerated). ¶ 7 We note that the filing requirements of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545 are jurisdictional and may not be ignored.

2024Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Thomas, 814 A.2d 754, 760 (Pa. Super. 2002),4 the Superior Court rejected application of the mailbox rule based on the evidence presented.

2020See Thomas, supra at 762 n.3 (suggesting that the misordering of a party’s name on a mailing would preclude application of the mailbox rule), Cohen, supra at 333 (incorrect first ____________________________________________ 7 The Commonwealth’s analysis relies upon a mistaken presumption that notice of Appellant’s conviction was mailed to her correct address.

2025See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Grasse, 606 A.2d 544, 545 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (pursuant to the mailbox rule, proof of mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received, and it is well settled that the presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed).

2024“Under the mailbox rule, proof of mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received.” Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Grasse, 606 A.2d 544, 545 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991).

2025See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997) (accepting any reasonable verifiable evidence of the date a prisoner places his filing in the control of prison authorities); Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2024See Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997) (accepting any reasonable verifiable evidence of the date a prisoner places his filing in the control of prison authorities); Commonwealth v. Perez, 799 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2024Similarly, in Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co., 828 A.2d 1131, 1136 (Pa. Super. 2003), the Superior Court affirmed a judgment entered against an appellant in absentia after the trial court determined that the mailbox rule presumption applied.

2022Under the mailbox rule, see Plaintiffs' Response, ,i 39-41, "proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received [, which] is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed." Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co., 828 A2d 1131, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations and quotations omitted).

2024For 6 the mailbox rule to apply, “there must be some evidence . . . that the notice was mailed . . . .” Douglas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 151 A.3d 1188, 1192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). “[U]ntil there is proof that a letter was mailed, there can be no presumption that it was received.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted).

2024For 6 the mailbox rule to apply, “there must be some evidence . . . that the notice was mailed . . . .” Douglas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 151 A.3d 1188, 1192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). “[U]ntil there is proof that a letter was mailed, there can be no presumption that it was received.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted).

2020Moreover, she also acted with due diligence upon discovery of her conviction.9 Id. ____________________________________________ 8 See Murphy v. Murphy, 988 A.2d 703, 709 (Pa.Super. 2010) (“[T]he presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.”). 9 Appellant testified that she received notice of a default as a result of her failure to make payments in connection with her conviction near the end of February 2019.

2020Moreover, she also acted with due diligence upon discovery of her conviction.9 Id. ____________________________________________ 8 See Murphy v. Murphy, 988 A.2d 703, 709 (Pa.Super. 2010) (“[T]he presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.”). 9 Appellant testified that she received notice of a default as a result of her failure to make payments in connection with her conviction near the end of February 2019.

2015Dep’t, 719 A.2d 825, 827 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998), for the proposition that the presumption of receipt conferred by the mailbox rule is rebutted where evidence corroborating the claim of lack of receipt is presented.

2003Id.; see also Donegal Mutual Insurance Company v. Insurance Department, 719 A.2d 825 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (finding that merely asserting that the letter was not received, without corroboration, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of receipt). ¶ 11 In applying the mailbox rule, the trial court found that the docket entries established that the complaint containing notice of the arbitration date was mailed on November 27, 2000.

2019Id. "[W]hen a letter has been written and signed in the usual course of business, and placed in the regular place of mailing, evidence of the custom of the establishment as to the mailing of such letters is receivable as evidence that the item was duly mailed." Id. at 636 (citation omitted).

2001(R.R. at 257a, N.T. at 25.) According to the mailbox rule, “proof that a letter was properly mailed raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was, in fact, received.” Sheehan v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Supermarkets General), 143 Pa.Cmwlth.624, 600 A.2d 633, 636 (1991), appeal denied, 530 Pa. 663 , 609 A.2d 170 (1992).

2016In particular, “introducing testimony that the notice was mailed suffices to establish the mailbox rule’s presumption of ____________________________________________ 1 Appellants do not offer any particularized argument on the trial court’s denial of the petition to open the judgment. -4- J-S42014-16 receipt.” Szymanski, 52 A.3d at 293 (citing Meierdierck v. Miller, 147 A.2d 406, 408 (Pa. 1959)).

2016As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted: “The overwhelming weight of statistics clearly indicates that letters properly mailed and deposited in the post office are received by the addressees.” Meierdierck v. Miller, 147 A.2d 406, 408 (Pa. 1959).

2024The Douglas court explained: In Blast Intermediate Unit # 17 v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 645 A.2d 447 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), this Court recognized two component presumptions, both rebuttable, that arise when a party challenges a public official’s claim to have placed an order in the mail: (1) the presumption of the regularity of the acts of public officials (which is used to establish that a public official placed an item into the mail); and (2) the presumption of receipt (i.e., that a properly mailed letter to the last known address of the addressee which is not returned undeli

2019In Blast Intermediate Unit # 17 v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 165 Pa.Cmwlth. 513 , 645 A.2d 447 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), this Court recognized two component presumptions, both rebuttable, that arise when a party challenges a public official's claim to have placed an order in the mail: (1) the presumption of the regularity of the acts of public officials (which is used to establish that a public official placed an item into the mail ); and (2) the presumption of receipt ( i.e. , that a properly mailed letter to the last known address of the addressee which is not returned undelivere

2016The trial court offered the following rationale for applying the mailbox rule herein: [Appellants] complain that the Court improperly applied the mailbox rule, a likely reference to the Court’s citation of Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co. See Court Order of July 10, 2015 (“[Kennedy’s] counsel indicated that a copy of the complaint sent by U.S. Regular mail had not been returned after 14 days, and thus it is presumed that the complaint was received by [Appellants]”). [Appellants] do not explain their theory of misapplication, but the record is sufficient to satisfy the rule, which states

2004These same cases have held that “a denial of receipt is not sufficient, in itself, to rebut this presumption.” Berkowitz, 317 A.2d at 585 ; see also Samaras, 698 A.2d at 73 (“[I]t is well-established that the presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.”). ¶ 13 Consequently, the application of the mailbox rule in this context virtually assures the defendant’s conviction regardless of whether his receipt of the notice to register is ever established “upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 364 , 90 S.Ct. 10

2020In Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 683 A.2d 278, 281 (Pa. 1996), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a prisoner’s pro se appeal of an agency decision to an appellate court “shall be deemed to be filed on the date that he delivers the appeal to prison authorities and/or places his notice of appeal in the institutional mailbox.” The Supreme Court reasoned that the mailbox rule was necessary to ensure fairness to pro se prisoners who cannot file their appeals in person and must “‘entrust their appeals to the vagaries of the mail and the clerk’s process for stamping incom

2020In Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 683 A.2d 278, 281 (Pa. 1996), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a prisoner’s pro se appeal of an agency decision to an appellate court “shall be deemed to be filed on the date that he delivers the appeal to prison authorities and/or places his notice of appeal in the institutional mailbox.” The Supreme Court reasoned that the mailbox rule was necessary to ensure fairness to pro se prisoners who cannot file their appeals in person and must “‘entrust their appeals to the vagaries of the mail and the clerk’s process for stamping incom

2020However, Appellant was incarcerated at the time that he submitted this filing, and is therefore entitled to the benefit of the “prisoner’s mailbox rule.” See Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa.Super. 1998) (applying the mailbox rule to PCRA filings).

2020However, Appellant was incarcerated at the time that he submitted this filing, and is therefore entitled to the benefit of the “prisoner’s mailbox rule.” See Commonwealth v. Little, 716 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa.Super. 1998) (applying the mailbox rule to PCRA filings).

2026As Ramsey was incarcerated at the time he mailed the notice of appeal, we must consider its timeliness in light of the prisoner’s mailbox rule, which “provides that a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2020Thus, we must consider the timeliness of his notice of appeal in light of the prisoner’s mailbox rule, which “provides that a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2024Simply put, there was no evidence presented as to the date of mailing, aside from the notice itself, which states it was mailed on September 2, 2021. 7 The Court notes September 2, 2021, was a Friday, and the following Monday was Labor Day. 7 97 A.3d 828, 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (vacating and remanding for an ALJ to make credibility determinations and findings as to the timeliness).

2017Welfare, 97 A.3d 828, 832 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). .

2020See Thomas, supra at 762 n.3 (suggesting that the misordering of a party’s name on a mailing would preclude application of the mailbox rule), Cohen, supra at 333 (incorrect first ____________________________________________ 7 The Commonwealth’s analysis relies upon a mistaken presumption that notice of Appellant’s conviction was mailed to her correct address.

2020See Thomas, supra at 762 n.3 (suggesting that the misordering of a party’s name on a mailing would preclude application of the mailbox rule), Cohen, supra at 333 (incorrect first ____________________________________________ 7 The Commonwealth’s analysis relies upon a mistaken presumption that notice of Appellant’s conviction was mailed to her correct address.

2020See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Liptak, 573 A.2d 559 , 561- 62 (Pa.Super. 1990) (holding defendant who waited over three months after receiving notice of conviction before seeking relief did not act in a timely -8- J-S14011-20 Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the trial court erred by relying upon the mailbox rule to satisfy the requirement that Appellant receive notice of her in absentia conviction.

2020See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Liptak, 573 A.2d 559 , 561- 62 (Pa.Super. 1990) (holding defendant who waited over three months after receiving notice of conviction before seeking relief did not act in a timely -8- J-S14011-20 Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the trial court erred by relying upon the mailbox rule to satisfy the requirement that Appellant receive notice of her in absentia conviction.

2019Therefore, the appeal period begins to run only when “the clerk notes on the docket that notice of the entry of judgment has been sent to the prospective appellant.” Calabrese v. Zeager, 976 A.2d 1151, 1152 (Pa. Super. 2009).6 Under the mailbox rule, proof that an order was properly mailed creates a rebuttable presumption that it was received.

2019Therefore, the appeal period begins to run only when “the clerk notes on the docket that notice of the entry of judgment has been sent to the prospective appellant.” Calabrese v. Zeager, 976 A.2d 1151, 1152 (Pa. Super. 2009).6 Under the mailbox rule, proof that an order was properly mailed creates a rebuttable presumption that it was received.

2017Under the mailbox rule, proof of mailing “creates a rebuttable presumption [that it] was in fact received.” Berkowitz, 317 A.2d at 585 . “[T]he presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.” Breza, 828 A.2d at 1135 .

2004These same cases have held that “a denial of receipt is not sufficient, in itself, to rebut this presumption.” Berkowitz, 317 A.2d at 585 ; see also Samaras, 698 A.2d at 73 (“[I]t is well-established that the presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.”). ¶ 13 Consequently, the application of the mailbox rule in this context virtually assures the defendant’s conviction regardless of whether his receipt of the notice to register is ever established “upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 364 , 90 S.Ct. 10

2017“A presumption that a letter was received cannot be based on a presumption that the letter was mailed.” Commonwealth, DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Whitney, 133 Pa. Commw. 437 , 575 A.2d 978, 979 (Pa. Cmwlth 1990).

2017“A presumption that a letter was received cannot be based on a presumption that the letter was mailed.” Commonwealth, DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Whitney, 133 Pa. Commw. 437 , 575 A.2d 978, 979 (Pa. Cmwlth 1990).

2019In applying the mailbox rule, this Court has alternatively used the phrases "regular place of mailing," or "usual place of mailing," and "into the mail." Compare Blast , 645 A.2d at 449 (using "in the mail"), and Brayman , 513 A.2d at 566 (using "regular place of mailing" and "usual place of mail"), with Douglas , 151 A.3d at 1191 (using "in the mail").

2002Our sister court soundly rejected that argument, and cogently and correctly reasoned: “Proof of office filing procedures without proof that the letter was written in the regular course of business and was placed in the usual place of mailing does not meet the burden to establish mailing and bring the mailbox rule into plag.” Id. (emphasis supplied). ¶ 21 Similarly in Shafer, supra our Court ruled that circumstantial evidence which merely suggested that a letter had been mailed, but did not directly establish that fact, was not adequate to trigger the presumption that the letter had been receiv

2018Dull v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 955 A.2d 1077, 1079 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

2016Id.