J

- A14043

- 23

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
CITY LIFE PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC

v.

ADEL ALAMERI

Appellant : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3147 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered November 14, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 150201675 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JUNE 12, 2023 Adel Alameri (“Alameri”) appeals from the order denying his petition to set aside a sheriff’s sale. We remand for a supplemental trial court opinion consistent with this decision. Given our disposition, a full recitation of the facts and procedures giving rise to this appeal is unnecessary. Briefly, City Life Property and Development Management, LLC (“City Life”) sued Alameri for a breach of a lease agreement concerning real property on North Broad Street

. City Life prevai led and obtained a money award in its favor

. City Life filed a writ of execution against Alameri’s real property at 2212 North Syndenham Street (“ the Syndenham Street property ” ). The Syndenham Street property sold at a sheriff’s sale in September 2022

. With in thirty days of the sheriff’s sale, A lameri file d a motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale asserting that City Life failed to provide proper notice of the sale and the docke t did not indicate notice of the sale

.J

- A14043

- 23

- 2

-

City Life answered the motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale asserting that Alameri had actual notice of the sale

. On November 14 , 2022, the trial court denied Alameri’s motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale with out explanation

. 1 Alameri filed a motion for reconsideration

. The trial court denied reconsideration on December 8, 2022. Alameri timely appealed t he denial of his motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale

. 2 The trial court , by order dated January 4, 2023 , and entered January 5, 2023 , directed Alameri to “file of record a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule 1925(b) and pursuant to subdivision (b)(1), concurrently serv e this [c]ourt at the Criminal Justice Center, 1301 Filbert Street, Suite 1413, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107

- 2609, within twenty

one (21) days.” Order, 1/5/23 (“the January 5, 2023 order”) (emphasis added) . The January 5, 2023 order cautioned that “ [a] ny issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b)

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 The trial court dated the order November 9, 2022, but the trial court’s prothonotary docketed the order on November 10, 2022, and served the order on November 14, 2022. Therefore, we will refer to the order denying Alameri’s motion to set aside the she riff’s sale as the November 14, 2022 order. See Pa.R.A.P. 108 (b).

2 Alameri properly indicated that he appealed from the order denying his motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale but later indicated to this Court that he took his appeal from the order d enying his motion for reconsideration . We have amended the caption of this appeal to reflect that this appeal properly lies from the order entered on November 14, 2022. See Erie Ins. Exch. v. Larrimore , 987 A.2d 732, 743 (Pa. Super. 2009) (noting that “[ d]enial of reconsideration is not subject to appellate review”).J

- A14043

- 23

- 3

-

shall be deemed waived.” Id

. (emphasis added). Th e trial court’s prothonotary indicated “notice given on [January 5, 20 23] of order entered/236 notice given

. . . .” See Docket Entry , 1/4/23 at 2:55 p.m

. Alameri then filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on January 24, 2023, and a certificate of service of his Rule 1925(b) statement on January 26, 2023. The January 26, 2023 ce rtificate of service averred that Alameri served the trial
court by first class mail. T he trial court subsequently authored a Rule 1925(a) opinion stating that Alameri “has not filed” a Rule 1925(b) statement and request ed that this Court find any issues raised on appeal waived and dismiss the appeal. Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/23, at 1

- 2. Before addressing the issues raised in this appeal, we consider the trial court’s opinion that Alameri’s noncompliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) results in
waiver

. See Feingold v. Hendrzak , 15 A.3d 937, 940 (Pa. Super. 2011) (noting that an untimely filing of a concise statement results in waiver of all issues on appeal). 3 Initially, we note that the trial court’s January 5, 2023

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 We add that City Life asserts that this Court should quash this appeal due to Alameri’s failure to comply with numerous rules of appellate procedure and directives from this Court , includ ing Alameri’s failure to provide proof of the date of service of his Rule 1925(b) statements

. See City Life’s Brief at 3 & n.3 ; see also id . at 4

- 8

. We acknowledge City Life asserts that Alameri: (1) improperly attached a document not contained in the record to his brief, (2) failed to timely comply with this Court’s order to file a reproduced record; and (3) filed a late reproduced record that did not include a table of conte nts, page numbers, or the required contents of a face

- sheet. We conclude th o se defects do not impair this Court’s ability to review the issues raised in this appeal and will not quash or dismiss the appeal for those reasons

. See Booher v. Olczak , 797 A.2 d 342, 344 (Pa. Super. 2002)

. Therefore, we will only address the apparent defects with respect to Alameri’s Rule 1925(b) statement.J

- A14043

- 23

- 4

-

order complied with the content req uirements of Rule 1925(b). See Pa.R.A.P. 1925 (b)(3) ; see also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc. , 88 A.3d 222, 225

- 26 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting that when the trial court’s order compli es with the requirements of Rule 1925 and an
ap pellant fails to comply with the order, waiver is appropriate)

. Moreover, the order and the docket contain notation s of service pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 236. Thus, if Alameri failed to comply with the terms of the trial court’s January 5, 2023 order , waiv er will be appropriate. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. , 88 A.3d at 225

- 26

. As noted above , the trial court faulted Alameri for failing to file a Rule 1925(b) statement in compliance with its order

. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/23, at 1

- 2. N either the docket no r the record support s the trial court’s conclusion : the docket states that Alameri filed a Rule 1925(b) statement , and the record establishes that he did so on January 24, 2023 , within the twenty

one days from the appropriate entry of the trial court’s January 5, 2023 order requiring the filing of a statement. Thus, we discern no support for the trial court’s conclusion that Alameri’s failure to file a Rule 1925 statement requires the waiver of hi s appellate issues. This does not end our inquiry, however. The trial court’s January 5, 2023 order required Alameri to file and serve the trial court with his Rule 1925(b) statement

. See Order, 1/5/23

. Although Alameri filed a certificate of service indicating that he mailed a copy of his statement to the trial court , he has yet to provide reasonably verifiable proof of the date of the mailing

.J

- A14043

- 23

- 5

-

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925 C omment (advising counsel “to retain date

- stamped copies of postal forms (or oth er proofs of timely service), in case questions of waiver arise later, to demonstrate that the [s]tatement was timely filed or served on the judge”). Based on the foregoing, we remand to the trial court for a determination of whether A lameri properly se rved the trial court with his Rule 1925(b)
statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1), (c). The trial court may hold a hearing and shall promptly prepare and file a supplemental trial court opinion detailing its findings and conclusions of law within thirty day s of this decision. Furthermore, if the trial court determines that A lameri complied with it s January 5, 2023 order or a breakdown in the operations of court occurred, the trial court ’s supplemental opinion shall address the issues raised in Alameri’s Rul e 1925(b) statement. We direct this Court’s Prothonotary upon receipt of the trial court’s opinion, to issue a new briefing schedule to afford the parties the opportunity to address the issues discussed in the trial court’s supplemental opinion. Furthermore, we direct that upon receipt of all necessary filings and briefs, the Prothonotary shall list this appeal on the next available Eastern District argument panel.
R emanded with instructions

. Court jurisdictio n retained . Case continued to a future argument panel.