IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Brian Yanoviak, Gregory Stenstrom, :

Paul G. Celentano, Anne C. Celentano, :

and John Cornell, :

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Chester County, Chester County : No. 1523 C.D. 2023

Board of Elections :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM FILED: February 21, 2024

Brian Yanoviak, Gregory Stenstrom, Paul G. Celentano, Anne C. 

Celentano, and John Cornell (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the Chester 

County (County) Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) December 8, 2023 order 

sustaining the County’s and the County Board of Elections’ (collectively, Appellees) 

preliminary objections (Preliminary Objections) to Appellants’ Petition to Open 

Ballot Box and Recanvass Voting Machines (Petition), and dismissing the Petition. 

After review, this Court affirms.

On November 15, 2023, Appellants filed the Petition in the trial court. 

On November 29, 2023, Appellees filed a Motion for Consolidation and their 

Preliminary Objections. On December 1, 2023, Appellees filed a Motion for 

Expedited Consideration of Appellees’ Motion for Consolidation and Preliminary 

Objections (Motion to Expedite). By December 4, 2023 order, the trial court granted 

the Motion to Expedite. On December 8, 2023, the trial court denied the Motion for 

Consolidation, sustained the Preliminary Objections, and dismissed the Petition. On 

December 13, 2023, Appellants appealed from the trial court’s order.
2

On December 18, 2023, the trial court directed Appellants to file of 

record and serve on the trial court judge a Concise Statement of Errors Complained 

of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1925(b) 

(Rule 1925(b) Statement). On January 17, 2024, the trial court issued its opinion 

pursuant to Rule 1925(a), wherein it stated, in pertinent part:

On December 18, 2023, [the trial court] directed 

[Appellants] to file a [Rule 1925(b) Statement] within [21] 

days. The [Rule 1925(b) Statement] was due January 8, 

202[4].[1] On January 12, 202[4], [Appellants] delivered a 

[Rule 1925(b) Statement] to my chambers; however, the 

[Rule 1925(b) Statement] has not been filed of record. 

Pursuant to [Rule] 1925(b), all issues on appeal are waived 

upon failure to timely file a [Rule 1925(b) Statement]. J.P.

v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904, 908 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to 

timely file court[-]ordered Rule 1925(b) [S]tatement 

results in waiver of all issues on appeal); Greater Erie 

Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 

222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Rule 1925 is a bright[-]line 

rule and failure to comply with the minimal requirements 

results in automatic waiver of issues raised). Accordingly, 

[Appellants] have failed to preserve any issues for review.

Original Record (O.R.) at 190-191.

2

By January 24, 2024 Order, this Court directed the parties to “address 

in their principal briefs on the merits whether Appellants preserved any issues on 

appeal considering their apparent failure to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement as directed 

by the trial court.” Id. On February 1, 2024, Appellees filed their brief. On February 

2, 2024, Appellants filed their brief. Appellants did not address the issue of whether 

1 This Court acknowledges that because, according to the trial court’s docket entries, the 

trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order was not mailed until December 19, 2024, the due date for filing 

and service was January 9, 2024. See generally Rule 108(a)(1) (“[T]he day of entry shall be the 

day the clerk of the court or the office of the government unit mails or delivers copies of the order 

to the parties[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1)).

2 Because the Original Record pages are not numbered, the page numbers referenced herein 

reflect electronic pagination.
3

Appellants preserved any issues on appeal considering their apparent failure to file 

a Rule 1925(b) Statement, as this Court directed.

3

 

Initially, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared in Commonwealth 

v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998): “[I]n order to preserve their claims for appellate 

review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a [Rule 

1925(b) Statement]. Any issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) [S]tatement will be 

deemed waived.” Id. at 309. Our Supreme Court reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. 

Butler, 812 A.2d 631 (Pa. 2002): “[A]ny issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) 

[S]tatement are waived.” Id. at 634. Finally, in Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 

A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005), the Supreme Court explained:

[T]he Lord/Butler rule remains necessary to [e]nsure trial 

judges in each appealed case [have] the opportunity to 

opine upon the issues which the appellant intends to raise, 

and thus provide appellate courts with records amen[]able 

to meaningful appellate review. See Lord, 719 A.2d at 

308. This firm rule avoids the situation that existed prior 

to Lord where trial courts were forced to anticipate which 

issues the appellant might raise and appellate courts had to 

determine “whether they could conduct a ‘meaningful 

review’ despite an appellant’s failure to file a [Rule] 

1925(b) [S]tatement or to include certain issues within a 

filed statement.” Butler, 812 A.2d at 633. Moreover, the 

system provides litigants with clear rules regarding what 

is necessary for compliance and certainty of result for 

failure to comply.

Castillo, 888 A.2d at 779-80; see also Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771 

(Pa. 2005) (companion case to Castillo). 

3 Specifically, in their “Statement of Questions Presented,” Appellants included: “Did 

Appellants comply with [the trial court’s] Rule 1925 [o]rder? Suggested answer: YES.” 

Appellants’ Br. at 5, ¶23. However, the only mention of the Rule 1925(b) order was in their 

“Summary of Argument,” wherein they state: “Pro Se Appellants timely complied with [the trial 

court’s] Rule 1925 [o]rder, and do not waive any rights to appeal on all germane aspects.” 

Appellants’ Br. at 6, ¶26.
4

The Castillo Court expounded:

[W]e specifically voice our disapproval of prior decisions 

of the intermediate courts to the extent that they have 

created exceptions to Lord and have addressed issues that 

should have been deemed waived. See, e.g., 

Commonwealth v. Alsop, 799 A.2d 129 (Pa. Super. 2002) 

(declining to waive issues raised in [an] untimely [Rule] 

1925(b) [S]tatement based on finding of no impediment to 

appellate review given trial court’s discussion of issues); 

Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 745 A.2d 662 (Pa. Super. 2000) 

(same).

Castillo, 888 A.2d at 780; see also Schofield.

“[I]n determining whether an appellant has waived his issues on appeal 

based on non-compliance with [Rule] 1925[(b)], it is the trial court’s order that 

triggers an appellant’s obligation under the rule, and, therefore, we look first to the 

language of that order.” Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 6 A.3d 1002, 1007-

08 (Pa. 2010) (plurality). In Berg, one of the issues before the Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court was “[w]hether the [Pennsylvania] Superior Court erred in finding waiver of 

all appellate issues for failing to serve the trial judge with a [Rule 1925(b) 

Statement], when the trial judge’s order directing a [Rule 1925(b) Statement] to be 

filed, failed to include language mandated by paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (iv) of [] 

Rule 1925(b)[.]” Berg, 6 A.3d at 1005.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained:

[T]he trial court’s order instructed [the a]ppellants to ‘file 

with the [c]ourt, and a copy with the trial judge, a [Rule 

1925(b) Statement] within twenty-one (21) days of the 

issuance of this order.’ Order, 1/3/[20]08 (emphasis 

added). Despite any suggestion to the contrary, the 

express language of [its] order did not instruct [the 

a]ppellants to serve a copy of their [Rule] 1925(b) 

Statement on the trial judge; rather, it directed [the 

a]ppellants to file copies of their [Rule] 1925(b) Statement 

with the court and with the trial judge. Although the 
5

instruction to file a document with a trial judge is an 

oddity, we conclude [the a]ppellants substantially 

complied with this directive by presenting a copy to the 

prothonotary of Berks County.

Berg, 6 A.3d at 1008. The Berg Court’s holding was limited to its facts, as explained 

therein:

[The Berg Court] hold[s] that the issues raised in [the 

a]ppellants’ [Rule] 1925(b) Statement were not waived, 

despite the fact that the [Rule 1925(b) S]tatement was not 

personally served on the trial judge, where personal 

service was attempted by counsel and thwarted by the 

prothonotary, and where the [trial] court’s Rule 

1925([b]) order specified ‘filing’ and not ‘service.’

Berg, 6 A.3d at 1012 (emphasis added).

Here, the trial court’s order specified:

[P]ursuant to [Rule] 1925(b)(1), Appellants are 

ORDERED to file of record and serve a [Rule 1925(b) 

Statement] no later than twenty-one (21) days after 

entry of this [o]rder. 

The [Rule 1925(b)] Statement must be served on the 

undersigned [p]ursuant to [Rule] 1925(b)(1) in person or 

by mail directed to Chester County Justice Center, 201 

West Market Street, Suite 6218, West Chester, 

Pennsylvania, 19380.

Service on all counsel of record and unrepresented parties 

shall be made concurrent with filing by any means of 

service specified under [Rule] 121(c).

Any issue not properly included in the [Rule 1925(b)] 

Statement timely filed and served pursuant to [Rule] 

1925(b) shall be waived.

O.R. at 185 (emphasis added).

Rule 1925(b) expressly provides, in relevant part:

Direction to File Statement of Errors Complained of on 

Appeal; Instructions to the Appellant and the Trial 
6

Court. If the judge entering the order giving rise to the 

notice of appeal ([]judge[]) desires clarification of the 

errors complained of on appeal, the judge may enter an 

order directing the appellant to file of record in the trial 

court and serve on the judge a concise statement of the 

errors complained of on appeal ([Rule 1925(b)] 

Statement[]).

(1) Filing and Service. The appellant shall file of record 

the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement and concurrently shall 

serve the judge. Filing of record shall be as provided in 

[Rule] 121(a) and, if mail is used, shall be complete on 

mailing if the appellant obtains a United States Postal 

Service [(USPS)] Form 3817 Certificate of Mailing, Form 

3800 Receipt for Certified Mail, Form 3806 Receipt for 

Registered Mail, or other similar [USPS] form from which 

the date of deposit can be verified in compliance with the 

requirements set forth in [Rule] 1112(c). Service on the 

judge shall be at the location specified in the order, and 

shall be either in person, by mail, or by any other means 

specified in the order. Service on the parties shall be 

concurrent with filing and shall be by any means of service 

specified under [Rule] 121(c).

(2) Time for filing and service.

(i) The judge shall allow the appellant at least 21 days from 

the date of the order’s entry on the docket for the filing and 

service of the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement. Upon application 

of the appellant and for good cause shown, the judge may 

enlarge the time period initially specified or permit an 

amended or supplemental [Rule 1925(b)] Statement to be 

filed. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, delay in 

the production of a transcript necessary to develop the 

[Rule 1925(b)] Statement[,] so long as the delay is not 

attributable to a lack of diligence in ordering or paying for 

such transcript by the party or counsel on appeal. In 

extraordinary circumstances, the judge may allow for the 

filing of a [Rule 1925(b)] Statement or amended or 

supplemental [Rule 1925(b)] Statement nunc pro tunc.

. . . .
7

(3) Contents of order. The judge’s order directing the 

filing and service of a [Rule 1925(b)] Statement shall 

specify:

(i) the number of days after the date of entry of the judge’s 

order within which the appellant must file and serve the 

[Rule 1925(b)] Statement;

(ii) that the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement shall be filed of 

record;

(iii) that the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement shall be served on 

the judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) and both the place 

the appellant can serve the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement in 

person and the address to which the appellant can mail the 

[Rule 1925(b)] Statement. In addition, the judge may 

provide an email, facsimile, or other alternative means for 

the appellant to serve the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement on the 

judge; and

(iv) that any issue not properly included in the [Rule 

1925(b)] Statement timely filed and served pursuant to 

subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.

(vii) Issues not included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement 

and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this 

paragraph (b)(4) are waived.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (text emphasis added).

In the instant matter, the trial court’s order clearly specified that 

“Appellants are ORDERED to file of record and serve a [Rule 1925(b) Statement] 

no later than twenty-one (21) days after entry of this [o]rder” and that “[a]ny issue 

not properly included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement timely filed and served 

pursuant to [Rule] 1925(b) shall be waived.” O.R. at 185. Rule 1925(b) is 

mandatory. “Pursuant to [Rule 1925(b)], an appellant must comply whenever the 

trial court orders the filing of a [Rule] 1925(b) [S]tatement in order to preserve a 

claim for appellate review. . . . Lord . . . .” Egan v. Stroudsburg Sch. Dist., 928 A.2d 

400, 402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Greco v. City of Wilkes-
8

Barre (Pa. Cmwlth No. 1425 C.D. 2019, filed Mar. 2, 2021), slip op. at 12 (“Greco’s 

failure to file its Rule 1925(b) Statement with the trial court prothonotary as directed 

requires this Court to conclude that the issues raised in Greco’s Rule 1925(b) 

Statement were waived.”); Sampson v. Bureau of Admin. Adjudication (Pa. Cmwlth. 

No. 1296 C.D. 2019, filed Dec. 8, 2020).4 

This holding comports with [the Pennsylvania Supreme]

Court’s view on pro se litigants. See Vann v. 

Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.] of Rev[.], . . . 494 A.2d

1081, 1086 ([Pa.] 1985) (pro se litigant must to some

extent assume the risk that his lack of legal training will

prove his undoing); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, . . . 555

A.2d 846, 852 ([Pa.] 1989) (pro se litigant ‘is subject to

same rules of procedure as is a counseled defendant; he

has no greater right to be heard than he would have if he

were represented by an attorney’); [s]ee also[] Jones v. 

Rudenstein, . . . 585 A.2d 520, 522 [(Pa. Super. 1991)] . . . 

(pro se litigant not absolved of complying with procedural 

rules and courts have no affirmative duty to walk pro se 

litigant through the rules).

Peters Creek Sanitary Auth. v. Welch, 681 A.2d 167, 170 n.5 (Pa. 1996) (italics 

omitted); Sampson, slip op. at 6. Consequently, Appellants’ failure to file their Rule 

1925(b) Statement with the trial court prothonotary as the trial court directed requires 

this Court to conclude that the issues raised in Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) Statement 

are waived. 

For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

4 Unreported decisions of this Court issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their 

persuasive value, but not as binding precedent. See Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s 

Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Brian Yanoviak, Gregory Stenstrom, :

Paul G. Celentano, Anne C. Celentano, :

and John Cornell, :

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Chester County, Chester County : No. 1523 C.D. 2023

Board of Elections :

PER CURIAM

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2024, the Chester County 

Common Pleas Court’s December 8, 2023 order is affirmed.