Late Nunc Pro Tunc Motion Fails
Petitioner Failed To File A Timely Appeal Within The 30-Day Jurisdictional Period
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/contract-state-cancelled-business-closed-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-haowc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Post number 5354
In MP Notary & Tags, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, No. 992 C.D. 2024, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (May 7, 2026) MP Notary & Tags, Inc. had an Agent Services Contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation allowing it to process vehicle titles and issue tags. In December 2022, state police raided its offices, seized its business records and equipment, and the business closed.
FACTS
The company’s principal contacted the Department to obtain paperwork and temporary tags so the business could resume operations. The Department later emailed that an official termination notice would be mailed. On February 23, 2023, the Department mailed a notice terminating the contract based on alleged criminal conduct, fraud, and related charges. The notice was sent to the business address, which had already been shut down, so the company did not receive it until after the 30-day appeal deadline had passed. On July 26, 2023, the company filed a petition to appeal nunc pro tunc (a Latin legal phrase meaning “now for then”. It refers to a court action or order that applies retroactively to a date in the past. It is used to correct clerical errors, accidental omissions, or clerical delays in official records, ensuring past events are properly documented) claiming that the Commonwealth’s closure of the business prevented timely receipt of the notice.
LAW
The court explained that appeal deadlines are jurisdictional and ordinarily cannot be extended. A late appeal may proceed nunc pro tunc only in limited circumstances. To obtain that relief, the appellant must show:
1. extraordinary circumstances such as fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent circumstances causing the late filing;
2. filing within a short time after learning of the need to act; and
lack of prejudice to the opposing party.
The court also emphasized that a party seeking nunc pro tunc relief bears a heavy burden and must act with reasonable diligence once aware of the need to take action. A hearing on a nunc pro tunc petition is required only if the petition alleges facts that, if true, would be legally sufficient to justify late relief.
DISCUSSION
The petitioner argued that it should have been allowed to appeal nunc pro tunc because Commonwealth agents had illegally shuttered its business, which prevented it from receiving the mailed termination notice, and because it was denied an evidentiary hearing. The Department responded that the late filing was the result of the petitioner’s own negligence in failing to monitor its mail or arrange for forwarding, despite knowing an official notice would be mailed.
The court agreed with the Department. It reasoned that the petitioner had a duty to monitor its business mail or make alternative arrangements once the office was closed. The court relied on prior cases holding that failing to check mail at an unstaffed office or to arrange for forwarding constitutes negligence, not non-negligent circumstances. The court also noted that earlier suspension notices had been sent to the same business address and had been successfully appealed, showing the petitioner knew official notices would be mailed there. Because the petitioner’s own lack of diligence caused the delay, it did not satisfy the requirements for nunc pro tunc relief.
ANALYSIS
The court’s analysis turned on whether the petitioner’s untimeliness resulted from non-negligent circumstances or from its own failure to act reasonably. The court concluded that even if the business had been forced to close, that did not excuse the petitioner from the obligation to ensure receipt of important mail.
CONCLUSION
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the July 1, 2024 order of the Executive Deputy Secretary. It held that the petitioner failed to file a timely appeal within the 30-day jurisdictional period and did not establish the extraordinary, non-negligent circumstances required for a nunc pro tunc appeal. As a result, the Department’s termination of the Agent Services Contract remained in effect.
Because Petitioner did not appeal within the 30-day jurisdictional period.
ZALMA OPINION
Records can be cured with an nunc pro tunc motion or appeal. But, to do so, you must do so promptly and within the jurisdictional limits. Failure to do so in a timely fashion is a total failure and the contracts cancellation remained.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
