J-A11034-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JAMES TAYLOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

CHRISTOPHER JOHN TCHABO AND THE 

SCHOOL AT CHURCH FARM 

Appellees No. 2903 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment Entered on January 2, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Civil Division at No.: 11-08060-TT

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and WECHT, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY WECHT, J.: FILED JULY 14, 2015

James Taylor appeals from the judgment entered on January 2, 2015 

in favor of Christopher John Tchabo.1 Based upon an untimely-filed

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement, Taylor has waived his issues on 

appeal, and we are constrained to affirm.

Because of our disposition, a recitation of the facts of this case is 

unnecessary. On January 28, 2011, Taylor commenced this negligence 

action against Tchabo and the School at Church Farm (“CFS”). On May 20, 

2014, a jury found in favor of Tchabo. The jury found that CFS and Taylor 

both were negligent, but that seventy percent of the negligence was 

attributable to Taylor. Therefore, no damages were awarded. On May 29, 

____________________________________________

1 Taylor settled with the School at Church Farm prior to trial.
J-A11034-15

- 2 -

2014, Taylor filed post-trial motions, which the trial court denied on 

September 9, 2014.

On October 6, 2014, Taylor filed his notice of appeal from the order 

denying his motion.2 On October 7, 2014, the trial court ordered Taylor to 

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within twenty-one days. On the order, there is a notation 

that it was sent on October 8, 2014. Taylor’s concise statement, which was 

docketed on October 30, 2014, was therefore filed one day after it was due.

Consequently, it is untimely and we are constrained to find his issues 

waived. Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005).

Rule 1925 provides that the date of filing for a concise statement is the 

date it is mailed, but only when that appellant obtains “a United States 

Postal service form from which the date of deposit can be verified.” 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). Nothing in the record indicates that Taylor obtained 

or submitted such a form. Taylor’s certificate of service, which is dated 

October 27, 2014, is not sufficient to verify the mailing date. In fact, the 

certificate does not even state whether service was by mail or otherwise. 

Therefore, we are constrained to use the docketing date as the date that 

____________________________________________

2 An order denying post-trial motions is not appealable, and the appeal 

properly lies from the judgment. Hart v. Arnold, 884 A.2d 316, 325 n.2 

(Pa. Super. 2005). However, when the final judgment is entered during the

pendency of an appeal, appellate jurisdiction is perfected. Id. Because

judgment was entered on January 2, 2015, we have jurisdiction and the 

caption has been amended accordingly. 
J-A11034-15

- 3 -

Taylor filed the concise statement, and deem it untimely. See In re Estate 

of Boyle, 77 A.3d 674, 675, 679 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding issues waived 

for failure to file timely concise statement when certificate of service was 

dated one day prior to deadline, but the statement was docketed ten days 

later).

Although the trial court addressed the merits of Taylor’s appeal, this 

Court has no “discretion to review the merits of an untimely Rule 1925(b) 

statement based solely on the trial court’s decision to address the 

merits. . . . Under current precedent, even if a trial court ignores the 

untimeliness of a Rule 1925(b) statement . . ., those claims still must be 

considered waived.” Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., v. Presque Isle 

Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 225 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc). Therefore, we 

are constrained to find that Taylor’s issues are waived and affirm the 

judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/14/2015
J-A11034-15

- 4 -