With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". position on Philadelphia Local Rule 227, which requires that any agreement to waive or extend the Rule 227.4 deadline be in writing. The Defendants contend that no valid extension until March 14, 2003 existed, as the agreement was not in writing as required by local Rule 227. They further contend that the on-the-record discussion does not evidence their intentions to extend the deadline. We disagree. ¶ 7 Upon our review of the November 25, 2002 transcript, it is clear that the Defendants agreed to extend the Rule 227.4 deadline until March 14, 2003. While Rule 227.4 enables the parties to enter judgment where the trial court has not ruled upon post-trial motions within 120 days of the filing of the motions, Rule 227.4 is optional. Pentarek v. Christy, 854 A.2d 970, 973 (Pa.Super.2004) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 8 In this case, the record reveals that the

A: recognizing that the rule 2274 deadline is optional and that the parties may elect to wait for the trial courts ruling
B: holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case
C: holding that appellate courts may uphold a trial courts ruling on any legal theory or basis applicable to the case but may not reverse a trial courts ruling on any theory or basis that might have been applicable to the case but was not raised
D: holding that it is error for court of appeals to reverse trial courts ruling that had not been objected to at the trial court level
A.