Court Opinion

ID: 9379829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 16:07:09.712201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.242808
License: Public Domain

J-A23044-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN RE: I.M.R., AN ALLEGED                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    INCAPACITATED PERSON                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: WILLIAM CARDWELL                :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 728 MDA 2022

                  Appeal from the Order Entered April 8, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at
                               No(s): 2021-281

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 16, 2023

        Appellant’s outright failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement

should not be rewarded. Randomly ignoring the rules of waiver will lead to

inconsistent decisions of this court, permit disparate treatment of litigants,

unfairly discriminate against those who follow the rules and cause confusion

among the trial judges.           Thus, I respectfully disagree with Majority’s

conclusion that this case should be remanded for the preparation of a

supplemental opinion. Rather, I would affirm the decision of the Orphans’

Court that all of Appellant’s claims are waived.

        This Court has long recognized that a party who files an untimely Rule

1925(b) statement waives all of his issues on appeal. Commonwealth v.

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23044-22

Thompson, 39 A.3d 335, 341 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted); see also

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). In Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque

Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa.Super. 2014), an en banc panel of this

Court concluded that “it is no longer within this Court’s discretion to ignore

the internal deficiencies of 1925(b) statements” and reaffirmed the rule that

a party who files an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement has waived all issues

raised on appeal. Id. at 224, 227; see also Commonwealth v. Castillo,

888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (reaffirming the “bright-line rule first set forth

in [Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998)]” and holding that an

untimely Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver of all issues on appeal).

      Instantly, the orphans’ court ordered Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b)

concise statement within 21 days of the date of its May 5, 2022 order, or by

May 26, 2022. Appellant filed his initial Rule 1925(b) on May 31, 2022, five

days after the expiration of the deadline. Appellant further acknowledged in

a certificate of service that this concise statement was mailed on May 27,

2022, which is also past the deadline.

      Thereafter, Appellant filed an untimely amended concise statement on

June 13, 2022. The record contains no indication that Appellant sought, or

that the orphans’ court granted, an extension of time for filing. The orphans’

court correctly declined to address the substantive merits of Appellant’s claims

in its Rule 1925(a) opinion and found waiver under Rule 1925. See orphan’s

court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 5/27/22 at 1, ¶ 3.

                                     -2-
J-A23044-22

      Respectfully, the Majority’s reliance on Rahn v. Consol. Rail Corp.,

254 A.3d 738 (Pa.Super. 2021), in support of its conclusion that the Orphans’

Court’s order is facially deficient under Rule 1925(b)(3)(iii), is misplaced.

Rahn is distinguishable in that it involved a situation concerning the improper

service of a timely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, which is clearly not the case

here. Moreover, the non-precedential decision in Boyle v. Main Line Heath,

Inc., 272 A3d 466 (Pa.Super. 2022), is distinguishable.

      Accordingly, I would find that Appellant has waived all his claims on

appeal by failing to timely comply with Rule 1925(b) and would affirm the April

8, 2022 final decree of the orphans’ court.

      Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

                                     -3-