J-S09003-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

PENN WASTE, INC.

 Appellee

v.

WILLIAM C. NEAL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1216 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 3, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of York County 

Civil Division at No.: 2017-SU-000741

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PLATT*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED MARCH 21, 2018

Appellant, William C. Neal, appeals pro se from the default judgment 

entered against him on July 3, 2017.1 We affirm.

We take the background facts and procedure in this matter from the 

trial court’s October 2, 2017 opinion and our independent review of the 

certified record. On February 22, 2017, the magisterial district judge entered 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed on August 2, 2017, purports to be from 

the trial court’s June 6, 2017 entry of default judgment. (See Notice of 

Appeal, 8/02/17). However, the default judgment became final on July 3, 

2017, when the trial court denied his petition for relief from default judgment. 

See Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1152 (Pa. 

Super. 2009) (“When a default judgment is entered by the prothonotary, the 

judgment is not instantaneously final,” but becomes final after decision on 

aggrieved party’s petition pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3.). We have changed 

the caption accordingly.
J-S09003-18

- 2 -

a judgment against Appellant and in favor of Appellee, Penn Waste, Inc., in 

its action for Appellant’s failure to pay for trash services required by 

Shrewsbury Township’s mandatory trash collection ordinance. 

On March 22, 2017, Appellant appealed to the trial court. On April 6, 

2017, Appellee filed a complaint with a notice to defend and a certificate of 

service that reflected that Appellee mailed the complaint to Appellant at the 

address he provided to the magisterial district justice.

2 (See Complaint, 

4/06/17, at attached Notice; see id. at attached Certificate of Service). The 

complaint alleged that Appellant owns a non-occupied structure in Shrewsbury 

Township, and that he failed to pay the amount due for mandatory trash 

collection services since May 7, 2014, with a total due of $1,010.52 as of 

January 2017. (See id. at unnumbered page 2 ¶ 9). Appellant failed to file 

an answer. On May 17, 2017, Appellee served Appellant with a ten-day notice 

of default. (See Ten-Day Notice, 5/17/17). On June 6, 2017, on praecipe by 

Appellee, a default judgment was entered by the prothonotary, and Appellant 

was provided with notice. (See Notice of Judgment, 6/06/17). On June 14, 

2017, Appellant filed a petition for relief from the default judgment pursuant 

to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 237.3, alleging that Appellee failed to 

____________________________________________

2 “The party filing a complaint under Rule 1004 shall forthwith serve it upon 

the opposite party in the appeal by leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to him 

at his address as shown in the magisterial district judge records[.]” 

Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. 1005(D).
J-S09003-18

- 3 -

serve the complaint and praecipe for entry of judgment in compliance with the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. He did not file a proposed answer.

On June 22, 2017, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s petition. 

It gave Appellant the opportunity to present testimony and any evidence he 

deemed necessary. Appellant repeated that he was not served, and did not 

wish to offer anything else. (See N.T. Hearing, 6/22/17, at 2). The trial court 

found Appellee properly served Appellant via U.S. mail at his current address, 

which is appropriate in an appeal from a magisterial district judge proceeding. 

(See id.). The court also found that Appellant did not otherwise have a 

meritorious defense, and denied his petition. (See id. at 3). Appellant timely 

appealed.3

Appellant raises eleven issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court err by allowing case below to proceed 

where Appellee below did not serve a complaint pursuant to Pa. 

R.C.P. 1007(2), Pa. R.C.P. 403 and Pa. R.C.P. 401 or by any other 

manner?

2. Did the trial court err by allowing case below to proceed 

when Appellee below did not serve a [n]otice to [d]efend pursuant 

to Pa. R.C.P. 1018.1 in any manner?

3. Did the trial court err by allowing case below to proceed 

when Appellee below did not serve a [p]raecipe for [e]ntry of 

[j]udgment pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.1 (2)(ii) in any manner?

4. Did the trial court err in not entering [j]udgment [n]on 

[p]ros [p]ursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3 against the Appellee below 

____________________________________________

3 Appellant filed a timely court-ordered statement of errors complained of on 

appeal on August 25, 2017. The trial court filed an opinion on October 2, 

2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-S09003-18

- 4 -

and dismiss the case with prejudice for the Appellee’s failure to 

timely file and serve the aforementioned documents?

5. Did the trial court err in effectively not affording [A]ppellant 

the right to cross-examine writings pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule 

of Evidence 612 (a) and 612 (b)(1)?

6. Did the trial court err in permitting witnesses to not be made 

available to the [A]ppellant for cross-examination pursuant to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 614 (a)?

7. Did the trial court err in permitting inadmissible hearsay 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 801 (a)(b)(c)?

8. Did the trial court err in permitting inadmissible hearsay 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 802?

9. Did the trial court err in not following the requirement of 

authentication and identification of evidence pursuant to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 901 (a)?

10. Did the trial court err in causing and permitting [A]ppellant’s 

right to the Confrontation Clause under Article 1 Section 9 of the 

Pennsylvania Constitution to be denied?

11. Did the trial court err in causing in permitting [A]ppellant’s 

right to the Confrontation Clause under Amendment Six of the 

United States Constitution to be denied?

(Appellant’s Brief, at unnumbered page 4).4

We begin our review by observing it is well-settled that “[a]n appellant’s 

failure to include an issue in his [Rule] 1925(b) statement waives that issue 

for purposes of appellate review.” Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148 

____________________________________________

4 Because the ground for relief in Appellant’s petition sounds in a petition to 

strike, our standard of review “is limited to whether the trial court manifestly 

abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Reco Equipment, Inc. 

v. John T. Subrick Contracting, Inc., 780 A.2d 684, 686 (Pa. Super. 2001), 

appeal denied, 790 A.2d 1018 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted).
J-S09003-18

- 5 -

(Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Here, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, 

Appellant failed to raise his first four issues, which involve allegations of trial 

court error in finding Appellee did not violate the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (See Appellant’s Brief, at unnumbered page 4; Concise Statement 

of [Errors] Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), 8/25/17). 

Therefore, they are waived.5 See Lineberger, supra at 148.

Additionally, the trial court was unable to review the issues that 

Appellant did raise in his 1925(b) statement because they were impermissibly 

vague. (See Trial Court Opinion, 10/02/17, at 3). 

Rule 1925 is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and 

focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on 

appeal. Rule 1925 is thus a crucial component of the appellate 

process. When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is 

appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review. When an 

appellant fails [to] adequately [] identify in a concise manner the 

issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded 

in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those 

issues. In other words, a [c]oncise [s]tatement which is too vague 

to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the 

functional equivalent of no [c]oncise [s]tatement at all.

Barnes v. Alcoa, Inc., 145 A.3d 730, 734 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation 

omitted).6

____________________________________________

5 Moreover, the record establishes that the trial court did not commit a 

manifest abuse of discretion or error of law in finding that Appellee properly 

conformed to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure

where it complied with all applicable rules. See Reco, supra at 686.

6

In fact, Appellant failed to raise any of these issues in the trial court, and 

they are waived for our review on this basis, as well. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
J-S09003-18

- 6 -

Instantly, the trial court observed that, although Appellant’s Rule 

1925(b) statement contains general claims regarding cross-examination, 

hearsay, and his right of confrontation:

Appellant fails to detail what writings he was allegedly not 

permitted to examine. Appellant also fails to identify what 

witnesses he was allegedly denied the right to cross-examine. 

Appellant fails to identify what inadmissible hearsay was allegedly 

improperly permitted by th[e c]ourt. Appellant fails to specify how 

his right to confrontation was allegedly denied under both the 

United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Th[e c]ourt is 

without sufficient information to address Appellant’s claims[.]

(Trial Ct. Op., at 3). Therefore, issues five through eleven are waived for our 

review. See Barnes, supra at 734.

Similarly, in his brief, Appellant fails to provide references to the record 

or pertinent law and discussion thereof in support of his fifth through eleventh 

issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(c); (see also Appellant’s Brief, at 

unnumbered pages 4, 8-9). In fact, the argument section of Appellant’s brief 

suffers from the same issues of vagueness as his Rule 1925(b) statement. 

Specifically, he fails to identify what witnesses and evidence he was not 

given the opportunity to cross-examine, what inadmissible hearsay the court 

allegedly admitted, what documents were not properly authenticated, or how 

he was denied his right to confrontation. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 

unnumbered pages 8-9; Appellant’s Concise Statement of [Errors] 

Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)). Therefore, we are 

unable to conduct meaningful review of Appellant’s claims; and issues five 
J-S09003-18

- 7 -

through eleven are waived on this basis as well.7 See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; J.J. 

DeLuca Co., Inc. v. Toll Naval Assoc., 56 A.3d 402, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012) 

(deeming claim waived where appellant failed to provide references to the 

record or develop argument in support of claim); Siculietano v. K & B 

Amusements Corp., 915 A.2d 130, 135 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2006) (issues waived 

where, “aside from making passing references to [] two rules, [a]ppellants 

have developed no appellate argument regarding the claim[.]”).

Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/21/2018

____________________________________________

7 Additionally, we briefly note the trial court’s observation that:

. . . Appellant was permitted to present any testimony and 

evidence at the hearing held on his [p]etition on June 22, 2017. 

[He] had the opportunity to call any witnesses that he believed 

supported his position at the hearing. [He] had the ability to 

speak with counsel for Appellee and examine any writings 

submitted by Appellee. . . . Appellant elected not to present any 

more argument aside from what was contained in his [p]etition 

but he was certainly afforded that opportunity.

(Trial Ct. Op., at 3-4). Therefore, his claims would lack merit, even if properly 

preserved below, and not waived on appeal.