OPINION OF THE COURT

In this appeal, Appellant Mary Chalkey, a/k/a Mary Matula,1 argues that the Superior Court erred in holding that Appellee Franklin Delano Roush, Jr. did not waive his claims on appeal as a result of his failure to file post-trial motions with the trial court. While we find that pursuant to Rule 227.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are *464required to file post-trial motions from a trial court’s order following a trial in both actions at law and in equity in order to properly preserve issues that they wish to raise on appeal, we also find that this rule shall be applied prospectively only. Thus, we affirm the Superior Court’s order granting Roush relief in the instant case.

In April 1994, the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County entered a judgment of approximately $80,000.00 against Chalkey pursuant to an action brought by her brother’s estate seeking liquidation of a property interest that her brother shared with her. Attorney Rex W. McQuaide represented Chalkey in that action. McQuaide also assisted Chalkey in trying to secure the money to satisfy the judgment she owed to her brother’s estate. When Chalkey failed to satisfy the judgment by late 1995, a judgment creditor scheduled a sheriffs sale on December 8, 1995 for a large parcel of property owned by Chalkey.

In November 1995, Chalkey retained Roush to act as her attorney in an attempt to stay the scheduled sheriffs sale. Roush, acting on behalf of Chalkey, filed a motion for a stay of the sale, and on December 4, 1995, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motion for a stay. Later that day, however, Chalkey entered into a contract of sale with Roush for the large parcel of land scheduled to be sold in exchange for $76,000.00, the amount remaining under the judgment against her.

In October 1997, Chalkey filed an action in equity requesting that the trial court declare the sale of the parcel to Roush void and require Roush to account to her for any revenue obtained from either a disposition of the property or a sale of timber from the property.2 Chalkey argued that Roush had exerted undue influence over her by using his position as her *465attorney to convince her to sell him the property for much less than its value. Furthermore, according to Chalkey, Roush was guilty of fraud and/or false pretenses because he led Chalkey to believe that he was merely loaning her the money in order to prevent the sheriffs sale.

On July 13, 1998, the trial court held a trial regarding the merits of Chalkey’s claims. At the close of the trial, the court incorporated the evidence from the previous proceedings, including the lengthy October 10th trial concerning the permanent injunction.3 See, n. 2, supra. On August 11, 1998, the trial court issued an opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically, the trial court determined that a confidential relationship existed between Roush and Chalkey and that Roush took unfair advantage of that relationship in order to obtain the property from Chalkey for less than its value. The trial court therefore found that the contract for the sale of the property should be voided based on the theory of undue influence4 and the parties should be returned to the positions they occupied before the transfer of the property. Accordingly, the trial court entered an order in which it declared the sale of the property void, instructed Roush to transfer the property back to Chalkey, and directed Roush to pay Chalkey the sums he received from an agreement to sell timber that was located on the property.

Roush did not file post-trial motions in response to the trial court’s order. Rather, he immediately appealed from the order to the Superior Court. A three judge panel of the Superior Court, relying on this Court’s per curiam order in Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 551 Pa. 306, 710 A.2d 54 (1998), rev’g, 700 A.2d 465 (Pa.Super. 1997), determined that the issues raised by Roush on appeal were waived because Roush failed to raise them in post-trial motions. Roush filed a Petition for Reargument, which the Superior Court granted, and the case was reargued before an en banc *466panel of the Superior Court. Following argument, a majority of the Superior Court determined that because the trial court did not enter a decree nisi pursuant to Rule 1517(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure,5 Roush did not waive his issues by failing to file post-trial motions.6 The Superior Court remanded the matter to the trial court to allow both the trial court and Roush to comply with. the Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, this Court granted allocatur to decide whether the Superior Court properly concluded that Roush did not waive the issues he raised on appeal by failing to file post-trial motions in accordance with Rule 227.1.7

In 1984, this Court rescinded Rules 1518 and 1519 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which governed the procedures for post-trial relief in an equity action,8 and adopted Rules 227.1 *467through 227.4 to establish uniform procedures for post-trial relief in actions at law and equity, and actions tried with or without a jury. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 cmt. (1983). Pursuant to Rule 227.1(c), a party shall file post-trial motions within ten days after a:

(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to agree, or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or

(2) notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision or adjudication in the case of a trial without jury or equity trial.

Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c). After a party files post-trial motions, the trial court may then:

(1) order a new trial as to all or any of the issues; or

(2) direct the entry of judgment in favor of any party; or

(3) remove a nonsuit; or

(4) affirm, modify or change the decision or decree nisi; or

(5) enter any other appropriate order.

Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(a). Grounds not specified by a party in post-trial motions pursuant to Rule 227.1 shall be deemed waived on appellate review. Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(b)(2); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Lane Enterprises, 551 Pa. 306, 710 A.2d 54 (1998).9

In Lane Enterprises, this Court recently reviewed whether a party may be excused from filing post-trial motions under Rule 227.1. 551 Pa. 306, 710 A.2d 54. Lane Enterprises involved an action at law where the trial court, following a bench trial, entered an opinion that did not include any findings of fact or conclusions of law but only disposed of the issues argued by the parties. See Lane Enterprises, 700 A.2d 465 (Pa.Super. 1997). Upon receipt of the trial court’s opinion, the appellant assumed that the opinion was a final order and *468therefore filed a notice of appeal rather than post-trial motions. Id. at 470. The Superior Court concluded that although the appellant did not file post-trial motions pursuant to Rule 227.1, it would nevertheless review the appellant’s issues because the trial court’s opinion, which lacked fact findings and legal conclusions, led both parties to believe that it was a final order. Id.10 On appeal, however, this Court reversed by a per curiam order, stating that Rule 227.1 “requires parties to file post-trial motions in order to preserve issues for appeal.” Lane Enterprises, 710 A.2d at 54.

In the instant case, the Superior Court recognized that both Rule 227.1 and Lane Enterprises mandate that a party file post-trial motions from a trial court’s decision and order following the conclusion of a trial. Nonetheless, relying on several of this Court’s previous decisions, the Superior Court determined that in an action at equity, a party may be excused from filing post-trial motions where the trial court entered an order that failed to comply with the requirements for an adjudication listed in Rule 1517(a) and thus, appeared to be final and subject to immediate appeal. See Commonwealth v. Derry Township, 466 Pa. 31, 351 A.2d 606 (1976) (appellant’s claims not waived as it cannot be presumed that appellant knew that he had to file exceptions to preserve his right to appeal where the trial court’s adjudication neither comports with the requirements of Rule 1517(a) nor indicates that it is a decree nisi); Community Sports, Inc. v. Oakland Oaks, 429 Pa. 412, 240 A.2d 491 (1968) (excusing appellants’ failure to file exceptions because they may have justifiably relied on chancellor’s statement that no decree nisi would be filed).11 We *469disagree that such an excuse remains permissible under Rule 227.1.

Community Sports, Derry Township, and the other decisions of this Court that the Superior Court relied upon below, were all decided under Rule 1517, in conjunction -with Rule 1518, which together provided for a post-trial practice particular to actions in equity. In rescinding Rule 1518 and replacing it with Rule 227.1, however, this Court intended to abolish that equity-specific practice and establish a standard post-trial practice, which applies to both actions at law and actions in equity. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 cmt. (1988). Under Rule 227.1, a party must file post-trial motions at the conclusion of a trial in any type of action in order to preserve claims that the party wishes to raise on appeal. In other words, a trial court’s order at the conclusion of a trial, whether the action is one at law or in equity, simply cannot become final for purposes of filing an appeal until the court decides any timely post-trial motions. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(a).

Moreover, just as we found that there was no excuse for a party’s failure to file post-trial motions from a trial court’s abrupt opinion following a trial in an action at law in Lane Enterprises, we find that there is no excuse for a party’s failure to file post-trial motions from a trial court’s order following an equity trial, even if that order does not comply with the requirements for an adjudication listed in Rule 1517(a).12 See Lane Enterprises, 710 A.2d at 54. Thus, the *470exceptions provided in Community Sports, Derry Township, as well as those other cases by this Court relied upon by the Superior Court' below, are no longer valid and our decision in Lane Enterprises applies in actions in equity, just as it applies in actions at law. With this unequivocal rule, there is no danger that parties will be confused as to whether they should file post-trial motions or proceed directly to an appeal from an order entered by a trial court in an action in equity.13

We recognize, however, that until this point there has been confusion in the courts below regarding whether our enact*471ment of Rule 227.1 abrogated our pre-Rule 227.1 decisions excusing a party from filing post-trial motions in an equity trial where the trial court entered an opinion and order that failed to comply with the requirements for an adjudication in Rule 1517(a). See In re J.J.F., J.R.F., 729 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa.Super. 1999) (remanding case for trial court to enter a decree nisi where trial court entered an order without decree nisi and appellant filed exceptions as well as notice of appeal); Christopher M’s Hand Poured Fudge, Inc. v. Hennon, 699 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Pa.Super. 1997) (appellant’s failure to file post-trial motions is excused because trial court entered opinion and order instead of decree nisi); Altomare v. Altomare, 355 Pa.Super. 391, 513 A.2d 486, 487 n. 1 (1986) (appellant did not waive claims by failing to file post-trial motions because trial court did not label order decree nisi nor indicate that post-trial motions were required). As noted by Roush, due to this confusion, parties have received mixed signals regarding whether they must file post-trial motions from a trial court’s order which does not correspond with Rule 1517(a), or immediately file an appeal.14 Given this confusion, our decision today, that a party must file post-trial motions from a trial court’s order following an equity trial in order to preserve issues for appeal and that a party shall not be excused from filing post-trial motions where the trial court enters an order that fails to comply with the technical requirements of Rule 1517(a), shall be applied prospectively only. See Pa.R.C.P. 126 (rules of civil procedure shall be construed liberally to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action). Accordingly, in the instant case, we affirm the Superior Court’s order granting Roush relief and remanding the matter to the trial court to enter an order that conforms to Rule 1517(a).

Concurring.

In Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wickett, 563 Pa. 595, 763 A.2d 813 (2000), this Court endorsed a plain meaning approach to Section 7532 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7532, and, in particular, to the legislative prescription that declarations of rights, status and legal relations “shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.” See Wickett, 563 Pa. at 604, 763 A.2d at 818 (“Section 7532 simply states that an order in a declaratory judgment action that either affirmatively or negatively declares the rights and duties of the parties constitutes a final order.”). Thus, the Court determined that an order that would be non-final under ordinary principles of appealability (since it resolved the claims as between less than all the parties, see Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1)), must nevertheless be deemed final by virtue of the legislative designation. Id. (citing Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(2)).1 In the present case, the common pleas court issued an order affirmatively granting, inter alia, declaratory relief (“the contract for sale of land between Defendant and Plaintiff is hereby declared NULL and VOID”), which, under the reasoning applied in Wickett, would seem plainly to constitute a final order.2 Nevertheless, here *473the Court chooses a uniform rule of appealability over the legislative designation.

I dissented in Wickett because I believed that the Court could and should adopt an interpretation aligning declaratory judgment jurisprudence with that which applies to civil actions generally. See Wickett, 563 Pa. at 605, 763 A.2d at 819 (Saylor, J., dissenting). I am able to join the majority’s disposition here because, given the choice between applying Wickett’s reasoning consistently to require an immediate appeal in proceedings involving premature judgments in declaratory judgment proceedings and aligning Rule 227.1 jurisprudence concerning declaratory judgments with that pertaining to civil judgments generally, I favor the latter course. I strongly believe, however, that the Court is best served by *474promulgating and interpreting its rules according to fundamental principles that are consistently applied, as this alleviates the potential for legitimate confusion among those practicing in the appellate courts and engenders greater respect for the rules.