J

- S47017

- 17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROBERT E. NYGAARD, J R. AND JANET J. NYGAARD , HIS WIFE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants

v.
JOHN KURTICK AND LOT TIE KURTICK, HIS WIFE
No. 6 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered November 21 , 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): 365

- CV

- 1999

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MOULTON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2017 Robert E. Nygaard, Jr. and Janet J. Nygaard appeal from the November 21, 2016 order of the Pike County Court of Common Pleas denying their motion for leave to file an amended complaint and ordering the matter closed due to docket inactivity under Pike County Local Rule 230.2. We affirm. On July 1 4, 2016, the Nygaards filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, 17 years after the filing of their initial complaint and 12 years after the last docketed activity in the case. On November 21, 2016, the trial court denied the Nygaards’ motion and ordered the matter closed . On December 19, 2016, the Nygaards filed a timely notice of appeal with this
Court. On December 21, 2016, the trial court ordered the Nygaards to file a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) s tatement no later th an 21J

- S47017

- 17

- 2

-

days after entry of the order

. The order also notified the Nygaards that failure to comply may result in the waiver of issues on appeal. The docket shows
t hat the Rule 1925(b) notice was mailed to the Nygaards on the same date.
Also on December 2 1, 20 1 6, the Nygaards filed a petition to open judgment with the trial court. On January 3, 2017, the trial court entered an order staying consider ation of the petition due to the pending appeal. On
F ebruary 6, 2017, the tri a l court issued a Rule 1925(a) statement , in which it asked this Court to find all issues waived for the Nygaards’ fai l ure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
Whe n a trial court orders an appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement,
he or she must comply in a timely manner. Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). An appellant’s f ailure to comply with a Rule 1925(b) order will result in waiver of all issues on appeal. Id. ; see Greater
Erie Indus. Dev

. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc. , 88 A.3d 222, 22 4

- 2 5 (Pa.Super. 2014) ( en banc ) ; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii)

. T he record shows that on December 21, 2016, the trial court ordered the Nygaards to file a Rule 1925(b) statement within 21 days and that they
did not file such a s tatement. 1 Because the Nygaards failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, we conclude that they have waived all issues on appeal

.

____________________________________________

1 In their brief, the Nygaards claim that the trial court’s January 3, 2017 order staying the proceedings precluded them from filing a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Nygaards’ Br. at 11

- 12. This argument is specious. T he trial co u rt issued th e January 3, 2017 order in response to the Nygaard s’ filing of a petition to open judgment, which the trial court lacked jurisdiction toJ

- S47017

- 17

- 3

-

Order affirmed. Judge Lazarus joins the memorandum. President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott concurs in the result. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/8/ 2 017

____________________________________________ consider due to the pending appeal

. Although the order state d that “any further action” wa s stayed, it is evident that the trial court intended to stay any action relat ing to the Nygaards’ petition to open judgment , not any action relating to the appeal

.