J

- S61016

- 17

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

v.

THOMAS A. ORMAN AND LESLIE E. ESPOSITO

- ORMAN

Appellants : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 302 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order October 12, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s): 2015

- 00647

- RC

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT , J. * MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JANUARY 02, 2018 In this mortgage foreclosure action, Leslie E. Esposito

- Orman and Thomas A. Orman appeal from the order entered October 12 , 2016, granting CitiM ortgage, Inc. summary judgment and awarding it judgment in rem for $ 179,601 .00 , plus interest and costs. We affirm. The following statement of procedural and factu al history is garnered f r o m the trial court opinion and the record. Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/2017. In May 2007, Appellant s executed a mortgage and promissory note to Mortgage IT, Inc. in the original principal amount of $ 140,000.00

. In June 2007 , Mortgage Electronic System (“MERS”) was recorded as a nominee for MortgageIT, Inc. Thereafter, the mortgage was assigned by MERS to CitiMortgage , Inc. , as recorded by the Chester County Recorder of Deeds inJ

- S61016

- 17

- 2

-

Mortgage Book 8533, Page 858 . In December 2010, Appellant s defaulted under the mortgage by failing to make payments due. From January 2011 to Ju ne 2015, the Appellants engaged in litigation against Appellee in the Uni ted State s District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

. See Orman , et al. v. Citimortgage , et al. , Civ. A. No. 15

- 3432 (E.D. Pa. 2016); Orman , et al. v. MortageIT et al . , Civ. A. No. 11

- 3196 (E.D . Pa. 2012); Orman v. MortgageIT et al. , Civ. A. No. 12

- 04352

- RC ( C.P. Ches. Cty . 2012) ; Orman , v. MortgageIT

, et al. , Civ. A. No. 11

- 00139 (E.D. Pa. 2011)

. In January 2015 , Appellee filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure. Following a number of pleadings, and Appellants’ premature a ppeal to this
Court , 1 i n February 2016 , Appellee file d a motion for summary judgment. Appellant s failed to timely file a response. In April 2016, Appellants filed a pleading styled as preliminary objections

. Ap pelle e filed a response thereto , and Appellants filed a sur - reply. In August 2016, Appellants filed their response to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. On October 12 , 2016, judgment was entered in favor of Appellee in the amount of $ 179,601.00 , with
int erest from J anuary 2015 at the rate of $ 21.88 per diem , plus costs and charges collectible under the mortgage for foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 This appeal, docketed at 424 EDA 2016 , was quashed as Appellants purported to appeal from orders of the trial court where the underlying complaint had yet to b e disposed of.J

- S61016

- 17

- 3

-

In November 2016, Appellant s timely filed the instant appeal . The lower
court o rdered Appe llants to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order, 11/17/2016. The order directed Appellants to “file of record and serve a statement of [e]rrors [c]omplained of on [a]ppeal no later than twenty

- one (21) days after the entry of this order.” Id

. Appellants untimely filed a 1925(b) statement in February 2017. See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 2/1/2017. The trial court issued a responsive opinion , which recommended quashal due to Appellants’ failure to comply with the court’s 1925(b) order. Appellants present twelve issues on appeal ; however, the untimely filing of Appellants’ 1925(b) statement precludes our review , as all of the issues are waived. I t is no longer within this Court's discretion to review the merits of an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement; whenever a trial court orders an appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, the appellant must comply in a timely manner

. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc. , 88 A.3d 222, 224

– 25 (Pa. Super. 2014) ( en banc ) (emphasis in original). Here, the record reflects that on November 17, 2016, the trial court issued an order in technical compliance with Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), requiring Appellant s to file a statement no later than twenty

- one days after the entry of the order. See Commonwealth v. Castillo , 88 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). The order also provided that “ any issue not properly included in the statementJ

- S61016

- 17

- 4

-

timely filed and served pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) shall be deemed waived. ” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order, 11/17/2016. Finally, the docket indicates that the prothonotary provided Appellants written notice of the entry of the order on February 8, 2016. Se e Chester Cty. Civil Docket No. 2015

- 00647

- RC; see also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. , 88 A.3d at 226 (requiring strict compliance with notice requirements); Pa.R.C.P. 236(a). Nevertheless, Appellant s filed their statement on February 1, 2017 , more than seventy days late. Appellant s have patently failed to comply with the minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Accordingly , all of their issues are waived on appeal , and we may not address the merits of the numerous claims. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii ); see also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. , 88 A.3d at 224

– 2 5. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/2/2018