Court Opinion

ID: 9696662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:54:14.126759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:24.961550
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION BY
STEVENS, J.:
¶ 1 While I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that Appellants’ failure to seek leave of the trial court to file their two, supplemental Rule 1925(b) statements has resulted in waiver of the issues raised therein and with its finding that Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) statement is vague, overly broad and does not identify the specific issues being raised on appeal, I would find Appellants have waived all issues on appeal.
¶2 The Majority has determined that Appellants were “forced” to file a vague Rule 1925(b) statement, as the trial court’s rationale for its ruling was not discernable from the record. The majority likens the circumstances herein to those presented in Ryan v. Johnson, 522 Pa. 555, 564 A.2d 1237 (1989); however, as the Majority notes, in that case the appellant stated she had been hindered in preparing a more specific 1925(b) statement as she did not know the basis of the trial court’s ruling without an opinion. Ryan, 522 Pa. at 558, 564 A.2d at 1238. To the contrary, herein Appellants did not make a similar assertion in their Concise Statement of the Matters Complained of on Appeal, and in fact, raised the following three, specific issues in their Statement of Questions Involved portion of their brief:
1. Did the [Ijower [cjourt err in sustaining preliminary objections to a legal malpractice claim in assumsit on the basis that no cause of action exists when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has explicitly held that a named legatee has standing as a third party beneficiary to pursue a claim for legal malpractice?
2. Did the [Ijower [cjourt err in sustaining preliminary objections to a legal malpractice claim in negligence on the basis that no cause of action exists because [Appellants] were not clients of the law firm or lawyer?
3. Did the [Ijower [cjourt err in sustaining preliminary objections that [Appellants] failed to plead a proper claim for breach of fiduciary duty?
Brief for Appellants at 3. Appellants had no additional information from the trial court when they drafted their brief than that which they had available when they filed their initial 1925(b) statement, yet they were able to present and develop the aforementioned specific issues in their brief.
¶ 3 In addition, in Ryan, supra, the trial court’s Order provided merely that after oral argument and upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the petition of the defendant to strike/open judgment was dismissed and the prayer for relief was denied. Ryan, 522 Pa. at 557-558, 564 A.2d at 1238. Conversely, in its December 30, 2005, Order, the trial court herein did pin*810point the specific objections it was granting as it asserted that “[Appellees]’ Preliminary Objections to Counts I, II, and III of [Appellants’] Amended Complaint are hereby sustained....” Appellees’ other preliminary objections were found to have been rendered moot by this determination. As such, Appellants were made aware that the trial court had focused its analysis upon Appellees’ Preliminary Objections to the first three counts in Appellants’ Complaint. Significantly, the issues Appellants develop in their brief relate to Appellees’ reasons for objecting to Counts I, II, and III, of their Complaint.
¶ 4 Accordingly, I would find Appellants have waived all issues on appeal.