the appeal was taken "was clearly intended to be a final pronouncement on the matters discussed in the opinion.” Fanning v. Davne, 795 A.2d 388, 392 (Pa.Super.2002). In such cases, if the only reason this Court were to quash an appeal was because final judgment had not yet been entered, the parties would inevitably praecipe the prothonotary to enter final judgment and the perfected appeal would follow. In the process, this Court would have wasted its resources quashing the appeal. See, e.g., Marsh v. Hanley, 856 A.2d 138, 139 (Pa.Super.2004) (permitting appeal before entry of judgment because error in docketing praecipe to enter judgment was the fault of the trial court prothonotary); Somerset Community Hospital v. Allan B. Mitchell & Assoc., 454 Pa.Super. 188, 685 A.2d 141, 144 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The exception, though, does not apply here. 3
holding appeal from order denying posttrial motions was proper since prothonotary entered judgment prior to appellate disposition holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal holding that issues are not waived for failing to file posttrial motions from a remand proceeding where no evidence was presented because no posttrial motions were required under those circumstances holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order holding that in the interest of judicial economy considering appeal from order denying posttrial motions and ordering entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff even though judgment was not actually entered