typographical error in Pennsylvania

2026See Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Campbell v. Campbell, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (Pa. Super. 1986)) (stating that “although orders of property distribution are not appealable until entry of a final divorce decree, . . . an award of equitable distribution is appealable where a divorce decree is entered while an appeal is pending” (some formatting altered)); see also Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day t

2026See Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Campbell v. Campbell, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (Pa. Super. 1986)) (stating that “although orders of property distribution are not appealable until entry of a final divorce decree, . . . an award of equitable distribution is appealable where a divorce decree is entered while an appeal is pending” (some formatting altered)); see also Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day t

2026See Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Campbell v. Campbell, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (Pa. Super. 1986)) (stating that “although orders of property distribution are not appealable until entry of a final divorce decree, . . . an award of equitable distribution is appealable where a divorce decree is entered while an appeal is pending” (some formatting altered)); see also Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day t

2026See Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Campbell v. Campbell, 516 A.2d 363, 366 (Pa. Super. 1986)) (stating that “although orders of property distribution are not appealable until entry of a final divorce decree, . . . an award of equitable distribution is appealable where a divorce decree is entered while an appeal is pending” (some formatting altered)); see also Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day t

2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Fretts, 271 A.3d 383 , 387 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2021), appeal denied, 281 A.3d 304 (Pa. 2022).

2021See Commonwealth v. Fretts, 2021 PA Super 198 , *2 n.2 (filed October 4, 2021) (observing that a typographical error in a notice of appeal as to the date of the order appealed “may be corrected and does not require dismissal of the appeal”).

2017See Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 791 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating “[a] party cannot rectify the failure to preserve an issue [for appeal] by proffering it in response” to the court’s request for a Rule 1925(b) statement). 4 Father and Stepmother cite § 2511(c) as providing for “Other considerations.” This citation appears to be a typographical error, as the section captioned “Other considerations” is § 2511(b), infra. Section 2511(c), is captioned, “(c) Right to file personal and medical history information.” Section 2511(c) provides, “At the time the decree of termination is transmitte

2017See Commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d 786, 791 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating “[a] party cannot rectify the failure to preserve an issue [for appeal] by proffering it in response” to the court’s request for a Rule 1925(b) statement). 4 Father and Stepmother cite § 2511(c) as providing for “Other considerations.” This citation appears to be a typographical error, as the section captioned “Other considerations” is § 2511(b), infra. Section 2511(c), is captioned, “(c) Right to file personal and medical history information.” Section 2511(c) provides, “At the time the decree of termination is transmitte

2017See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc).

2017See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc).

2025This Court refused to “allow [the appellant] to exploit a typographical error even it chose to overlook for many years.” Id. at 405 .

2024Aldhelm, Inc., 879 A.2d at 405 (footnote omitted).

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mysnyk, 527 A.2d 1055 , 1056 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1987).

2021Commonwealth v. Mysnyk, 527 A.2d 1055 , 1056 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1987); Commonwealth v. Hewlett, No. 164 EDA 2020, slip op. at 3 & n.4 (Pa. (Footnote Continued Next Page) -5- J-A19036-21 notice of appeal certified that “this order terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution.” 12/16/2020 Notice of Appeal.

2021See e.g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 399 A.2d 699 , 699 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1979) (declining to quash an appeal due to a typographical error), rev’d on other grounds 438 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1981).

1983In the present case, however, we note, as did the court in State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Schultz, 281 Pa.Super. 212 , 218 n. 7, 421 A.2d 1224 , 1227 n. 7 (1980): "There is no indication in the record that the late filing here was caused by non-negligent happenstance." We are aware that in Commonwealth v. Brown, 264 Pa.Super. 127 , 399 A.2d 699 (1979), the Superior Court interpreted a notice of appeal from bill nos. "136 & 138" as a typographical error and decided that what was actually meant was that an appeal was being taken from bill nos. "136-138", however, we note that the Superi

2021See e.g., Commonwealth v. Brown, 399 A.2d 699 , 699 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1979) (declining to quash an appeal due to a typographical error), rev’d on other grounds 438 A.2d 592 (Pa. 1981).

1983In the present case, however, we note, as did the court in State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Schultz, 281 Pa.Super. 212 , 218 n. 7, 421 A.2d 1224 , 1227 n. 7 (1980): "There is no indication in the record that the late filing here was caused by non-negligent happenstance." We are aware that in Commonwealth v. Brown, 264 Pa.Super. 127 , 399 A.2d 699 (1979), the Superior Court interpreted a notice of appeal from bill nos. "136 & 138" as a typographical error and decided that what was actually meant was that an appeal was being taken from bill nos. "136-138", however, we note that the Superi

2026See Lemanski, 529 A.2d at 1097 . ____________________________________________ 8 The Commonwealth’s brief contains a typographical error and cites to the notes of testimony for September 10, 2024 instead of September 9, 2024. - 21 - J-S33019-25 Evidentiary Issue: Discovery Materials Appellant next argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude evidence that the Commonwealth failed to produce in discovery.

2026See footnote 6, supra. Judgment affirmed.

2025See Lewis, supra. The record supports the trial court’s findings that the $361,126 amount stated in the MSA was a scrivener’s error.1 See Stamerro, supra. We further conclude that Wife ____________________________________________ 1 We note that the trial court referred to the typographical error in the MSA as both a “scrivener’s error” and a “mutual mistake.” A “mutual mistake” “occurs when the parties to the contract have an erroneous belief as to a basic assumption of the contract at the time of formation” and therefore “the written instrument fails to set forth the true agreement of the par

2025With respect to the public safety exception, “an agency must show: (1) the record at issue relates to a law enforcement or public safety activity; and (2) disclosure of the record would be reasonably likely to threaten public safety or a public protection activity.” Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d at 184 (quotation omitted).

2025See Lewis, supra. The record supports the trial court’s findings that the $361,126 amount stated in the MSA was a scrivener’s error.1 See Stamerro, supra. We further conclude that Wife ____________________________________________ 1 We note that the trial court referred to the typographical error in the MSA as both a “scrivener’s error” and a “mutual mistake.” A “mutual mistake” “occurs when the parties to the contract have an erroneous belief as to a basic assumption of the contract at the time of formation” and therefore “the written instrument fails to set forth the true agreement of the par

2025The adjusted run date is the very issue disputed in the instant appeal, and therefore precision is paramount. -9- J-S09033-25 Commonwealth v. Watkins, 315 A.3d 145, 152 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citations omitted).

2025Because the so-called misidentification is merely a typographical error, Petitioners’ argument lacks merit. 8 Preponderance of the evidence is “the lowest evidentiary standard, . . . tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Carey) (quotation omitted). 6 Rothey, 185 A.3d at 464-65 ; Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2025Because the so-called misidentification is merely a typographical error, Petitioners’ argument lacks merit. 8 Preponderance of the evidence is “the lowest evidentiary standard, . . . tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Carey) (quotation omitted). 6 Rothey, 185 A.3d at 464-65 ; Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2024See Lehman v. Pa. State Police, 839 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2003) (“facial challenges to a statute’s constitutionality need not be raised before the administrative tribunal to be reviewed by an appellate court; challenges to a statute’s application, however, must be raised before the agency or are waived for appellate review” and “administrative agencies must address ‘as[- ]applied’ claims”). 2 The hearing transcript contains a typographical error indicating that I stated “if . . . you think I shouldn’t address the constitutionality, . . . why don’t you just send a letter[.]” In fact, my direction to co

2024See Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927, 929 (Pa.Super. 2003) (permitting untimely appeal to proceed because the “error resulted from the trial court’s misstatement of the appeal period, which operated as a breakdown in the court’s operation” (cleaned up)). -4- J-S45010-23 length, with attachments, which is practically identical to the brief entered in this Court.4 The trial court authored a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

2024See Commonwealth v. Parlante, 823 A.2d 927 , 929 (Pa.Super. 2003) (permitting untimely appeal to proceed because the “error resulted from the trial court’s misstatement of the appeal period, which operated as a breakdown in the court’s operation” (cleaned up)). -4- J-S45010-23 length, with attachments, which is practically identical to the brief entered in this Court.4 The trial court authored a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

2024See Rule 1033(b) Cmt.; see also Ferraro, supra. In reaching our conclusion, we emphasize that the instant name correction was not “bringing in a new party” or substituting a party, but rather correcting a typographical error in the plaintiff’s party name.

2024See id.