J-A01031-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF ROSALIND T. 

SNYDER, AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED 

PERSON

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: ESTATE OF ROSALIND T. 

SNYDER

No. 379 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order December 22, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Orphans' Court at No(s): 2014-0465

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.:FILED JANUARY 08, 2016

Rosalind T. Snyder, pro se, appeals from the order entered in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, declaring her to be a partially 

incapacitated person and appointing C. Barbara LeMunyon, President of 

Elder Care Advocacy Services, Inc., as limited guardian of her person and 

estate. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal. 

The trial court entered its Adjudication and Decree on December 22, 

2014. Snyder filed a timely pro se notice of appeal to this Court on January 

21, 2015. On January 29, 2015, the trial court issued an order pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), directing Snyder to file a statement of errors complained 

of on appeal within 21 days. Snyder did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement 

as ordered. 
J-A01031-16

- 2 -

In order to preserve claims for appellate review, an appellant must 

comply whenever the trial court orders her to file a statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925, and any issues not raised in 

a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived. Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 

A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998). However, there are caveats to a finding of 

waiver. Forest Highlands Cmty. Ass'n v. Hammer, 879 A.2d 223, 227 

(Pa. Super. 2005). 

First, the trial court must issue a Rule 1925(b) order directing an 

Appellant to file a response within [twenty-one] days of the 

order. Second, the Rule 1925(b) order must be filed with the 

prothonotary. Third, the prothonotary must docket the Rule 

1925(b) order and record in the docket the date it was made. 

Fourth, the prothonotary shall give written notice of the entry of 

the order to each party’s attorney of record, and it shall be 

recorded in the docket the giving of notice. See Pa.R.C.P. 236. 

If any of the procedural steps set forth above are not complied 

with, Appellant’s failure to act in accordance with Rule 1925(b) 

will not result in a waiver of the issues sought to be reviewed on 

appeal.

Id., citing Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249, 1252 (Pa. 2002).

Here, the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order directed Snyder to file a 

response within 21 days and was filed with and docketed by the clerk of 

court. Written notice of the order was provided to each party’s attorney of 

record, as well as to Snyder herself, and the giving of such notice was 

recorded on the docket. Accordingly, the court complied with all necessary 
J-A01031-16

- 3 -

procedural steps and Snyder’s failure to file her Rule 1925(b) statement 

results in waiver of all appellate claims.1 

Appeal dismissed.

____________________________________________

1 We also note an alternative basis for dismissal. Specifically, Snyder’s brief 

fails to conform in any way to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, either with 

regard to format or substantive content. The brief does not include any of 

the required sections enumerated in Pa.R.A.P. 2111, including statement of 

jurisdiction, statement of scope and standard of review, statement of the 

questions involved, statement of the case, and argument. Rather, Snyder’s 

brief is divided into six sections entitled “Preliminary Assertion,” “Complete 

and Proper Fire Investigation Results,” “Moot Points From The Court of 

Common Pleas,” “Testimony of Dr. Moyer,” “All Together Now,” and “Relief 

Sought.” Moreover, the content of Snyder’s brief is disjointed and confused 

and does not assist the Court in meaningful analysis. We have previously 

stated:

When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, 

that is not enough for meaningful review. When an appellant 

fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues sought 

to be pursued on appeal, the . . . court is impeded in its 

preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues.

Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148 (Pa. Super. 2006). Because of 

the manner in which Snyder presents her complaints, we are unable to 

discern her specific assignments of error. It is not the duty of this Court to 

guess which specific rulings are being challenged or to speculate as to the 

legal basis for those challenges. Because Snyder has failed to develop her 

arguments with citation to and analysis of relevant authority, she has waived 

her issues and they are unreviewable on appeal. See Bombar v. West Am. 

Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 78 (Pa. Super. 2007). 
J-A01031-16

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/8/2016