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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

CitiMortgage, 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 factual history is garnered 

from the trial court opinion and the record. Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/2017. In 

May 2007, Appellants executed a mortgage and promissory note to 

MortgageIT, 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 in 
J-S61016-17

- 2 -

Mortgage Book 8533, Page 858. In December 2010, Appellants defaulted 

under the mortgage by failing to make payments due. 

From January 2011 to June 2015, the Appellants engaged in litigation 

against Appellee in the United States 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 appeal to this 

Court,

1

in February 2016, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment.

Appellants failed to timely file a response. In April 2016, Appellants filed a 

pleading styled as preliminary objections. Appellee 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 

interest from January 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 be disposed of.
J-S61016-17

- 3 -

In November 2016, Appellants timely filed the instant appeal. The lower 

court ordered Appellants 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. It 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 

Appellants 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 statement
J-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. See 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, 

Appellants filed their statement on February 1, 2017, more than seventy days 

late.

Appellants 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–

25.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/2/2018