Court Opinion

ID: 9389068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 16:07:35.263175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.064312
License: Public Domain

J-A27020-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    MARCUS A. HENRY, JR.                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    HOLLIE RHOADS, TIM MORRIS AND              :   No. 317 MDA 2022
    DIAKON ADOPTION AND FOSTER                 :
    CARE                                       :

                 Appeal from the Order Dated January 25, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):
                                   21-13213

BEFORE:      DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                            FILED APRIL 24, 2023

        Marcus A. Henry, Jr. appeals from the order granting the preliminary

objections of Hollie Rhoads, Tim Morris, and Diakon Adoption and Foster Care1

(“Diakon”) (together, “Appellees”), and dismissing his complaint. We remand

for a determination as to whether Henry filed a timely statement of errors

complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(1).

        Henry filed a pro se complaint alleging that Diakon had placed his three

biological children in foster care with Rhoads and Morris (“Foster Parents”),

who made false statements about him, including that he had physically abused

the children and violated a Protection from Abuse order. He alleged that
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1Appellees’ brief states that the party’s name is “Diakon Child, Family, and
Community Ministries.”
J-A27020-22

Diakon was negligent for placing the children with Foster Parents. Appellees

filed preliminary objections arguing, among other things, that they are

immune under the Child Protective Services Law (“CPSL”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

6318(a)(2). The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the

complaint, and Henry appealed.

       The court entered an order on March 1, 2022, directing Henry to file a

Rule 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, within 21

days. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).2 The order advised Henry, “Any issue not

included in a timely filed and served Statement of Errors Complained of on

Appeal shall be deemed waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order, 3/1/22, at 1.

       The court did not receive a Rule 1925(b) statement within 21 days —

that is, by March 22, 2022.3 The trial court accordingly authored an opinion

stating that Henry had waived all issues.

       Two weeks later, on April 5, 2022, the trial court prothonotary time-

stamped and docketed Henry’s Rule 1925(b) statement. The docket does not

reflect the method of filing, and no mailing envelope is included in the certified

record. Henry signed a proof of service stating that he sent the statement to
____________________________________________

2 The order is dated February 28, 2022, but a March 1, 2022, docket entry
states that the prothonotary provided Rule 236 notice on March 1, 2022. The
order was therefore “entered’” on March 1, 2022. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(b)
(providing order is entered on date clerk notes in docket that notice of order
has been given).

3 See Pa.R.C.P. 106(a) (“When any period of time is referred to in any rule,
such period in all cases . . . shall be so computed as to exclude the first and
include the last day of such period”). March 22, 2022, did not fall on a weekend
or holiday.

                                           -2-
J-A27020-22

the court via U.S. Mail two days before the deadline, on March 20, 2022.

However, attached to the statement is a receipt from the Berks County

prothonotary, showing an $8.00 payment by check for a “Complaint eFiling

Fee.” See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, at 6 (unpaginated). The receipt bears

the docket number for the instant case and is dated April 5, 2022. Id.

      Henry thereafter filed in this Court a “Motion to Clarify Delivery of

Appellant’s Concise Statement of Errors.” In it, Henry alleges he called the

trial court’s prothonotary to see if there was a fee for filing a Rule 1925(b)

statement and was directed to look at the trial court’s website. He claims there

is no filing fee for a concise statement listed on the court’s website. He

provides the website address for the “Prothonotary of Berks County Fee Bill,”

and attaches a copy of the prothonotary’s Fee Schedule, which makes no

reference to a Rule 1925(b) statement.

      Henry further alleges that, as he believed that there was no fee required

to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, he mailed the statement to the trial court on

March 20, 2022, two days before the deadline. He claims that the prothonotary

sent it back to him, unfiled, demanding an $8.00 filing fee. He does not allege

the date on which the prothonotary received his statement or the date it

returned it to him. Henry claims he mailed the statement back to the court

with an $8.00 check, on April 2, 2022. He alleges that according to his bank,

the prothonotary deposited his check on April 6, 2022. He attaches an image

of his check, which shows a deposit date of April 6, 2022.

                                     -3-
J-A27020-22

        Henry argues that when a party uses the e-filing system, all amounts

are due at the time of filing, even when they are listed online for the public.

He asserts that on the other hand, when filing by U.S. mail, “any unlisted

charges come as a surprise and at the pace of the mail.” Mot. to Clarify,

4/14/22, at ¶ 13. He argues, “In the same way pro se status confers no special

benefit up on the appellant, it too should hold that pro se status confers no

special disability nor handicap upon the Appellant.” Id. at ¶ 14 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

        This Court denied the motion per curiam, without prejudice. Appellees

filed a Motion to Dismiss, which we also denied without prejudice. Appellees

again argue for dismissal based on Rule 1925(b) waiver in their brief.

        If the court orders an appellant to file a statement of errors complained

of on appeal, and the appellant fails to timely do so, the appellant waives his

issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). We do not have discretion to entertain

issues that were not included in a timely statement. Greater Erie Indus.

Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 225 (Pa.Super.

2014) (en banc).

        Rule 1925(b) requires the appellant to file the statement “as provided

in Pa.R.A.P. 121(a).” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1).4 Rule 121(a), in turn, explains that

the filing date is the date of receipt by the prothonotary:

        Papers required or permitted to be filed in an appellate court shall
        be filed with the prothonotary. Filing may be accomplished by mail
____________________________________________

4   Electronic filing may also be permitted. See Pa.R.A.P. 125.

                                           -4-
J-A27020-22

      addressed to the prothonotary, but except as otherwise provided
      by these rules, filing shall not be timely unless the papers are
      received by the prothonotary within the time fixed for filing. . . .

Pa.R.A.P. 121(a); see also Pa.R.C.P. 205.1 (“A paper sent by mail shall not

be deemed filed until received by the appropriate officer”).

      When a Rule 1925(b) statement is filed by mail, filing “shall be complete

on mailing,” provided that the appellant “obtains a United States Postal

Service Form 3817, Certificate of Mailing, or other similar United States Postal

Service Form from which the date of deposit can be verified[.]” Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(1). When the appellant obtains such a form, the date of mailing is

controlling. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon for Certificate Holders of CWALT,

Inc., Alternative Loan Tr. 2007-HY6 Mortg. Pass-through Certificates

Series 2007-HY6 v. Brooks, 169 A.3d 667, 669 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2017). When

the appellant does not obtain the form, the date of filing is the date the

prothonotary received the statement. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp.,

88 A.3d at 226 nn.5, 6.

      Rule 1925(b) does not mention the payment of a filing fee. Rule of

Appellate Procedure 2701, however, provides that “[a] person upon filing any

paper shall pay any fee therefore prescribed by law.” Pa.R.A.P. 2701(a). The

Rules of Civil Procedure also require payment of fees. See Pa.R.C.P. 205.1

(“Any legal paper not requiring the signature of, or action by, a judge prior to

filing may be delivered or mailed to the prothonotary, sheriff or other

appropriate officer accompanied by the filing fee, if any”). The official note to

Rule 2701 explains that while previous appellate rules “required the payment

                                      -5-
J-A27020-22

of the fee in advance of filing,” the Rules of Appellate Procedure allow for filing

by mail, and therefore “a limited opportunity is afforded to permit the prompt

correction of the failure to include a check with the letter of transmittal or the

failure to draw the check in the proper amount.” Pa.R.A.P. 2701, Note.

      If a prothonotary rejects civil pleadings filed within time limits, based on

an initial failure to pay a filing fee, it does not affect the timeliness of the filing.

Mariano v. Rhodes, 270 A.3d 521, 530 (Pa.Super. 2022). While a

prothonotary may notify the party that a document is defective, permitting

the prothonotary to reject potentially nonconforming documents would “confer

on the prothonotary the power to implement the Rules” and make judicial

timeliness determinations. Id. at 529 (quoting Nagy v. Best Home Services,

Inc., 829 A.2d 1166, 1170 (Pa.Super. 2003)) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

      Therefore, an appellant’s failure to initially comply with a fee

requirement will not render a Rule 1925(b) statement untimely. It is the date

the prothonotary receives the document that determines the date of filing; if

a Certificate of Mailing was obtained, the date of filing is the date of mailing.

      As Henry did not obtain Certificate of Mailing from the post office, the

operative date is the date the prothonotary first received his statement.

However, we cannot determine that date from the record. We therefore

remand pursuant to Rule 1925(c)(1) for a determination of the date. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(1); Bank of New York Mellon v. Brooks, No. 1362 EDA

2016, 2017 WL 1437521, unpublished memorandum at *3 and n.3 (Pa.Super.

                                         -6-
J-A27020-22

2017) (remanding for determination of when prothonotary received Rule

1925(b) statement, even where prothonotary time-stamped and docketed the

statement after the deadline, where proof of service stated appellant mailed

the statement before the deadline).

      The trial court shall determine on remand whether the prothonotary

received and rejected the statement on or before March 22, 2022. It may

conduct such proceedings as necessary to make that determination. If the trial

court finds that Henry filed his statement in a timely manner, it shall issue a

supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing the issues raised in the

statement. The trial court shall transmit a supplemental record with the court’s

findings within 60 days of this memorandum.

      Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.

                                      -7-