time when any error in Pennsylvania

2024Accordingly, “[o]n appeal[,] the [appellate c]ourt will not consider a claim that was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Campbell v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 86 A.3d 344, 349 , 349 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (quoting Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d 474 , 475- 76 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

2023“On appeal the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Id. at 476 (citation omitted).

2026See Hong, 765 A.2d at 1123 ; see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

2026See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); see also Hong, 765 A.2d at 1123 (holding that this Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected).

2023“To preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial, and [the] ‘Superior Court will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.’” Commonwealth v. Smith, 606 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 1992) (quoting Noecker v. Johns–Manville Corp., 513 A.2d 1014, 1018 (Pa. Super. 1986)).

1995We have previously stated: ‘We will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Noecker v. Johns-Manville Corporation, 355 Pa.Super. 463, 471, 513 A.2d 1014, 1018 (1986).

2024Failure to timely object to a basic and fundamental error will result in waiver of that issue.”); - 16 - J-A06026-24 see also Nelson v Kresge, 1417 EDA 2021 at 19 (Pa. Super., filed February 23, 2022) (unpublished memorandum) (holding that the father due no relief where he failed to raise any prior objection as to timing and/or scheduling or make any requests for earlier dates during disposition of the petitions for modification and contempt) (citing Fillmore v. Hill, 665 A.2d 514, 515-516 (Pa. Super (1995) (“On appeal, the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the t

2023See In re J.A., supra; see also Fillmore v. Hill, 665 A.2d 514, 515-16 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“On appeal, the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.”).

2023“To preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial, and [the] ‘Superior Court will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.’” Commonwealth v. Smith, 606 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 1992) (quoting Noecker v. Johns–Manville Corp., 513 A.2d 1014, 1018 (Pa. Super. 1986)).

2021It is well-settled that to preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial, and this Court “will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 606 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa.Super. 1992) (citations omitted).

2022On appeal, the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.”) - 39 - J-A03033-22 (citations omitted); see also Bednarek v. Velazquez, 830 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2022On appeal, the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.”) (citations omitted); see also Bednarek v. Velazquez, 830 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2018"The Superior Court will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected." Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 641 A.2d 1176, 1184 (Pa. Super. 1994).

2018See also Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 641 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Super. 1994) ("The Superior Court will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.") (citing Commonwealth v. Smuh, 606 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 1992).

2024In re S.C.B., 990 A.2d 762, 767 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d 474, 475-76 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted)).

2024S.C.B., 990 A.2d at 767 (quoting Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d 474, 475-76 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted)). ____________________________________________ 2 The orphans’ court further determined that Appellants lacked standing and cited in support its opinion filed in the appeal at No. 146 EDA 2023.

2025Our Court “will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Interest of L.V., 209 A.3d 399, 418 (Pa. Super. 2019). - 10 - J-S32013-24 Here, Husband did not raise the issue in his answer to Wife’s contempt petition or raise the issue during the contempt hearing.

2025“On appeal the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Interest of L.V., 209 A.3d 399, 418 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal citation omitted).

2019The principle [sic] rationale underlying the waiver rule is that when an error is pointed out to the trial court, the court then has an opportunity to correct the error.”); Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622, 626 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“Appellant’s failure to object to the court’s noncompliance with the procedural [requirements] constituted a waiver of his [issue on appeal].”).

2014The principle [sic ] rationale underlying the waiver rule is that when an error is pointed out to the trial court, the court then has an opportunity to correct the error.” (citations omitted)); Smith v. Smith, 431 Pa.Super. 588 , 637 A.2d 622, 626 (1993) (“Appellant’s failure to object to the court’s noncompliance with the procedural [requirements] constituted a waiver of his [issue on appeal].”).

2016See McManamon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259, 1274 (Pa. Super. 2006) (this Court will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected) (citation omitted).

2015Further, we will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected. ‘“[0]ne must object to error's, improprieties or irregularities at the earliest possible stage of the adjudicatory process to afford the jurist hearing the case the first occasion to remedy the wrong and possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal to complain of the matter.’ ” Keffer v. Bob Nolan’s Auto Service, Inc., 59 A.3d 621, 645 (Pa.Super.2012) (quoting McMana-mon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259, 1274 (Pa.Super.2006)) (quotation omitted).

2026See Pa.R.E 301(a)(1); see also Keffer v. Bob Nolan’s Auto Serv., Inc., 59 A.3d 621, 645 (Pa. Super. 2012) (This Court “will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.”). 11 The parties also agree that Metz paid Appellant workers’ compensation benefits on account of his work injury.

2015Further, we will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected. ‘“[0]ne must object to error's, improprieties or irregularities at the earliest possible stage of the adjudicatory process to afford the jurist hearing the case the first occasion to remedy the wrong and possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal to complain of the matter.’ ” Keffer v. Bob Nolan’s Auto Service, Inc., 59 A.3d 621, 645 (Pa.Super.2012) (quoting McMana-mon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259, 1274 (Pa.Super.2006)) (quotation omitted).

2022Commonwealth v. McFalls, 251 A.3d 1286, 1293 (Pa. Super. 2021) (emphasis added; citation and quotation marks omitted).

2021See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); see also Commonwealth v. McFalls, 251 A.3d 1286 , - 15 - J-S27027-21 J-S27028-21 1293 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating that to preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial, and this Court “will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2019For instance, in Commonwealth v. Brown, 701 A.2d 252, 254 (Pa. Super. 1997), we found the appellant had waived his challenge to “testimony that was given and admitted as evidence without objection from [the a]ppellant.” We stressed that “[t]he Superior Court will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Id.

2019For instance, in Commonwealth v. Brown, 701 A.2d 252, 254 (Pa. Super. 1997), we found the appellant had waived his challenge to “testimony that was given and admitted as evidence without objection from [the a]ppellant.” We stressed that “[t]he Superior Court will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Id.

2023This Court “will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Id. (citation omitted).

2023See In re J.A., supra; see also Fillmore v. Hill, 665 A.2d 514, 515-16 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“On appeal, the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.”).

2024It is crucial that counsel did not specifically object to an adverse inference prior to the trial court’s deliberations. “[W]e will not consider a claim on appeal which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.” Krepps v. Snyder, 112 A.3d 1246, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that a party’s failure to specifically and contemporaneously object to an instruction prior to deliberations constituted a waiver of the issue).

2023The failure to make a timely and specific objection waives that claim on appeal, and “a litigant may not raise a new theory for an objection made at trial in his appeal.” Commonwealth v. T.B., 232 A.3d 915, 922 (Pa. Super. 2020); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). [This Court] will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected.

2021In this jurisdiction one must object to errors, improprieties or irregularities at the earliest possible stage of the adjudicatory process to afford the jurist hearing the case the first occasion to remedy the wrong and possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal to complain of the matter. 209 A.3d at 418 (citation omitted and formatting altered); see also In re A.W., 187 A.3d 247, 252-53 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that because the parents’ counsel failed to timely object before the trial court, the parents waived their issue that the trial court violated their right to due process because, among oth

2018See, McCoy v. McCoy, 888 A.2d 906, 908 (Pa.Super. 2005): Our role in reviewing equitable distribution awards is well-settled.

2017Summers v. Summers, 35 A.3d 786, 790 (Pa. Super. 2012) quoting Hong v. Pelagatti, 765 A.2d 1117, 1123 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2014See, e.g., Demarchis v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 999 A.2d 639, 641 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010); Solomon v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 966 A.2d 640, 643 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 678 , 982 A.2d 67 (2009); Taylor v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 948 A.2d 189, 196 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008); Quick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 915 A.2d 1268, 1271 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). .

2014See, e.g., Demarchis v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 999 A.2d 639, 641 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010); Solomon v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 966 A.2d 640, 643 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 678 , 982 A.2d 67 (2009); Taylor v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 948 A.2d 189, 196 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008); Quick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 915 A.2d 1268, 1271 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). .

2014See, e.g., Demarchis v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 999 A.2d 639, 641 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010); Solomon v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 966 A.2d 640, 643 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 678 , 982 A.2d 67 (2009); Taylor v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 948 A.2d 189, 196 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008); Quick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 915 A.2d 1268, 1271 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). .

2014The principle [sic] rationale underlying the waiver rule is that when an error is pointed out to the trial court, the court then has an opportunity to correct the error.” M.O. v. J.T.R., 85 A.3d 1058, 1061 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).