J-S70023-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

SANDRA G. PECCI, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

HARRY PECCI, JR., :

:

Appellant : No. 1646 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order entered May 21, 2015,

Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County,

Civil Division at No. 2012-DR-00905 – PACSES No. 968113305

BEFORE: DONOHUE, LAZARUS and PLATT*, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2015

Appellant, Harry Pecci, Jr. (“Pecci, Jr.”), appeals the trial court’s order 

dated May 21, 2015, setting his 2014 income for child support and alimony 

purposes. On appeal, Pecci, Jr. contends that the trial court erred in 

including in its calculation a hardship withdrawal from his 401K retirement 

account.

For the reasons that follow, we are constrained to conclude that Pecci, 

Jr. has waived all issues on appeal. Rule 1925 of the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Appellate Procedure provides in relevant part as follows:

Rule 1925. Opinion in Support of Order

* * *

(b) Direction to file statement of errors 

complained of on appeal; instructions to the 

appellant and the trial court.--If the judge 

entering the order giving rise to the notice of appeal 
J-S70023-15

- 2 -

(“judge”) desires clarification of the errors 

complained of on appeal, the judge may enter an 

order directing the appellant to file of record in the 

trial court and serve on the judge a concise 

statement of the errors complained of on appeal 

(“Statement”).

(1) Filing and service.--Appellant shall 

file of record the Statement and 

concurrently shall serve the judge. Filing 

of record and service on the judge shall 

be in person or by mail as provided in 

Pa.R.A.P. 121(a) and shall be complete 

on mailing if appellant obtains a United 

States Postal Service Form 3817, 

Certificate of Mailing, or other similar 

United States Postal Service form from 

which the date of deposit can be verified 

in compliance with the requirements set 

forth in Pa.R.A.P. 1112(c). Service on 

parties shall be concurrent with filing and 

shall be by any means of service 

specified under Pa.R.A.P. 121(c).

* * *

(3) Contents of order.--The judge's order 

directing the filing and service of a 

Statement shall specify:

(i) the number of days after 

the date of entry of the 

judge's order within which 

the appellant must file and 

serve the Statement;

(ii) that the Statement shall 

be filed of record;

(iii) that the Statement shall 

be served on the judge 

pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1);
J-S70023-15

- 3 -

(iv) that any issue not 

properly included in the 

Statement timely filed and 

served pursuant to 

subdivision (b) shall be 

deemed waived.

(4) Requirements; waiver.

* * *

(vii) Issues not included in 

the Statement and/or not 

raised in accordance with the 

provisions of this paragraph 

(b)(4) are waived.

(c) Remand.

* * *

(2) Upon application of the appellant and 

for good cause shown, an appellate court 

may remand in a civil case for the filing 

nunc pro tunc of a Statement or for 

amendment or supplementation of a 

timely filed and served Statement and 

for a concurrent supplemental opinion.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

In a recent en banc decision, this Court reaffirmed that Pa.R.A.P. 1925 

operates as a bright-line rule, and that, as a result, “failure to comply with 

the minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in automatic 

waiver of all the issues raised.” Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. 

v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 68 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en 

banc) (emphasis in original) (citing Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 
J-S70023-15

- 4 -

309 (Pa. 1998), Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 

2005), and Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. Super. 

2005)). We further emphasized that “our Supreme Court does not 

countenance anything less than stringent application of waiver pursuant to 

Rule 1925(b) ....” Id. This Court lacks any authority to create exceptions to 

the waiver requirement. Id. (“Succinctly put, it is no longer within this 

Court’s discretion to ignore the internal deficiencies of Rule 1925(b) 

statements.”) Id. 

A review of the certified record in the present case reflects that Pecci, 

Jr. failed to comply with the filing requirements of Rule 1925(b). Pecci, Jr. 

filed his notice of appeal on June 2, 2015, and the next day, June 3, 2015, 

the trial court issued an order directing Pecci, Jr. to file a statement of 

matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b) within 21 days. 

The trial court’s order conforms in all respects to the requirements of Rule 

1925(b)(3). The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) written opinion on July 2, 

2015, in which it addressed Pecci, Jr.’s substantive issues but also noted that 

he had waived all of his appellate issues based upon his failure to file a Rule 

1925(b) statement. Trial Court Opinion, 7/2/2015, at 5-7.

In his appellate brief filed with this Court, Pecci, Jr. offers a unique 

argument. As an attachment to his appellate brief, he attaches a copy of the 

Civil Docketing Statement filed with this Court at the outset of his appeal. 

The Civil Docketing Statement includes a request for a brief “Description of 
J-S70023-15

- 5 -

Appeal,” to which Pecci, Jr. entered “Please see attached.” Attached is a 

letter signed by Pecci, Jr. that contains a description of his appeal, including 

a section entitled “Issues to be raised on appeal.” At the top of the copy of 

the Civil Docketing Statement attached to his appellate brief, Pecci, Jr. has 

handwritten “The was my statement of errors complained of on appeal.” 

Even if we were to consider this attachment to the Civil Docketing 

Statement to constitute a statement of issues complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Rule 1925(b), we would still have to find waiver pursuant to the 

Greater Erie, Lord, Castillo, and Schofield line of cases. Rule 1925(b)(1) 

specifically provides that the appellant must “file of record the Statement

and concurrently shall serve the judge.”1 Here, Pecci, Jr. did not file the 

attachment to his Civil Docketing Statement with the Prothonotary of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, and therefore he did not comply 

with the filing requirements of Rule 1925(b). The case docket contains no 

reference to any such filing and the Civil Docketing Statement is not 

otherwise included in the certified record on appeal. Because Pecci, Jr. failed 

 

1

 While he did not attach a certificate of service, Pecci, Jr. apparently did 

comply with the separate requirement to serve a copy on the trial court 

judge. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court noted that “Husband did 

send to this [c]ourt the Superior Court of Pennsylvania Civil Docketing 

Statement, which includes, in part, a listing of Husband’s grievances with 

this [c]ourt.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/2/2015, at 3. 
J-S70023-15

- 6 -

to comply with the requirements of Rule 1925(b), we must find that he 

waived all issues on appeal.2 

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/20/2015

 

2 We note that Pecci, Jr. did not submit to this Court, pursuant to Rule 

1925(c)(2), an application for remand in a civil case to permit the filing nunc 

pro tunc Statement.