J

- A23044

- 22

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: I.M.R., AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON

APPEAL OF: WILLIAM CARDWELL : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 728 MDA 2022 Appeal from the Order Entered April 8, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphan s’ Court at No(s): 2021

- 281

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 16, 2023 Appellant’s outright failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement should not be rewarded. Randomly ignoring the rules of waiver will lead to inconsistent decisions of this court, permit disparate treatment of litigants , unfairly discriminate ag ainst those who follow the rules and cause confusion among the trial judges. Thus, I respectfully disagree with Majority’s
conclusion that this case shou ld be remanded for the preparation of a supplemental opinion . Rather, I would affirm the decision of the Orphans’

Court that all of Appellant’s claims are waived

. This C ourt has long recognized that a party who files an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement waives all of his issues on appeal. Commonwealth v.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- A23044

- 22

- 2

-

Thompson , 39 A.3d 335, 341 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). In Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc. , 88 A.3d 222 (Pa.Super. 2014), an en banc pane l of this
C ourt concluded that “it is no longer within this Court’s discretion to ignore the internal deficiencies of 1925(b) statements” and reaffirmed the rule that a party who files an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement has waived all issues raised on appeal. Id. at 224, 227 ; see also Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (reaffirming the “bright

- line rule first set forth in [ Commonwealth v. Lord , 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998)]” and holding that an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver of all issues on appeal). Instantly, the orphans’ court ordered Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement within 21 days of the date of its May 5, 2022 order, or b y May 26, 2022 . Appellant filed his initial Rule 1925(b) on May 31, 2022 , five days after the expiration of the deadline . Appellant further acknowledged in
a certificate of service that this concise statement was mailed on May 27, 2022, which is also past the deadline

. Thereaft er, Appellant filed an untimely amended concise statement on June 13, 2022. The record contains no indication that Appellant sought, or that the orphans’ court granted, an extension of time for filing. The orphans’

court correctly declin ed to address the substantive merits of Appellant’s claims

in its Rule 1925(a) opinion and f ound waiver under Rule 1925. See orphan’s court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 5/27/22 at 1, ¶ 3

.J

- A23044

- 22

- 3

-

Respectfully, the Majority’s reliance on Rahn v. Consol. Rail Corp. , 254 A.3d 738 ( Pa.Super. 2021), in support of its conclusion that the O rphans’
C ourt’s order is facially deficient under Rule 1925(b)(3)(iii) , is misplaced.
Rahn is distinguishable in that it involved a situation concerning the improper service of a timely

- filed Rule 19 25(b) statement, which is clearly not the case
here. Moreover, the non - precedential decision in Boyle v. Main Line Heath,

Inc. , 272 A3d 466 (Pa.Super. 2022), is distinguishable. Accordingly, I would find that Appellant has waived all his claims on appeal by failing to timely comply with Rule 1925(b) and would affirm the April 8, 2022 final decree of the orphans’ court. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.