Citimortgage, Inc. v. Orman, T. ( 2018 )

J-S61016-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CITIMORTGAGE, INC. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
THOMAS A. ORMAN AND LESLIE E. :
ESPOSITO-ORMAN :
: No. 302 EDA 2017
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order October 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s):
2015-00647-RC
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED JANUARY 02, 2018
In this mortgage foreclosure action, Leslie E. Esposito-Orman and
Thomas A. Orman appeal from the order entered October 12, 2016, granting
CitiMortgage, Inc. summary judgment and awarding it judgment in rem for
$179,601.00, plus interest and costs. We affirm.
The following statement of procedural and factual history is garnered
from the trial court opinion and the record. Trial Court Opinion, 5/2/2017. In
May 2007, Appellants executed a mortgage and promissory note to
MortgageIT, Inc. in the original principal amount of $140,000.00. In June
2007, Mortgage Electronic System (“MERS”) was recorded as a nominee for
MortgageIT, Inc. Thereafter, the mortgage was assigned by MERS to
CitiMortgage, Inc., as recorded by the Chester County Recorder of Deeds in
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S61016-17
Mortgage Book 8533, Page 858. In December 2010, Appellants defaulted
under the mortgage by failing to make payments due.
From January 2011 to June 2015, the Appellants engaged in litigation
against Appellee in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County. See Orman,
et al. v. Citimortgage, et al., Civ. A. No. 15-3432 (E.D. Pa. 2016); Orman,
et al. v. MortageIT et al., Civ. A. No. 11-3196 (E.D. Pa. 2012); Orman v.
MortgageIT et al., Civ. A. No. 12-04352-RC (C.P. Ches. Cty. 2012); Orman,
v. MortgageIT, et al., Civ. A. No. 11-00139 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
In January 2015, Appellee filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure.
Following a number of pleadings, and Appellants’ premature appeal to this
Court,1 in February 2016, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment.
Appellants failed to timely file a response. In April 2016, Appellants filed a
pleading styled as preliminary objections. Appellee filed a response thereto,
and Appellants filed a sur-reply. In August 2016, Appellants filed their
response to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. On October 12, 2016,
judgment was entered in favor of Appellee in the amount of $179,601.00, with
interest from January 2015 at the rate of $21.88 per diem, plus costs and
charges collectible under the mortgage for foreclosure and sale of the
mortgaged premises.
____________________________________________
1 This appeal, docketed at 424 EDA 2016, was quashed as Appellants
purported to appeal from orders of the trial court where the underlying
complaint had yet to be disposed of.
-2-
J-S61016-17
In November 2016, Appellants timely filed the instant appeal. The lower
court ordered Appellants to file a concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order,
11/17/2016. The order directed Appellants to “file of record and serve a
statement of [e]rrors [c]omplained of on [a]ppeal no later than twenty-one
(21) days after the entry of this order.” Id. Appellants untimely filed a
1925(b) statement in February 2017. See Concise Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal, 2/1/2017. The trial court issued a responsive
opinion, which recommended quashal due to Appellants’ failure to comply with
the court’s 1925(b) order.
Appellants present twelve issues on appeal; however, the untimely filing
of Appellants’ 1925(b) statement precludes our review, as all of the issues are
waived. It is no longer within this Court's discretion to review the merits of
an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement; whenever a trial court orders an
appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, the
appellant must comply in a timely manner. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev.
Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224–25 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(en banc) (emphasis in original).
Here, the record reflects that on November 17, 2016, the trial court
issued an order in technical compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), requiring
Appellants to file a statement no later than twenty-one days after the entry of
the order. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 88 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005).
The order also provided that “any issue not properly included in the statement
-3-
J-S61016-17
timely filed and served pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) shall be deemed
waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order, 11/17/2016. Finally, the docket indicates
that the prothonotary provided Appellants written notice of the entry of the
order on February 8, 2016. See Chester Cty. Civil Docket No. 2015-00647-
RC; see also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., 88 A.3d at 226 (requiring
strict compliance with notice requirements); Pa.R.C.P. 236(a). Nevertheless,
Appellants filed their statement on February 1, 2017, more than seventy days
late.
Appellants have patently failed to comply with the minimal requirements
of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Accordingly, all of their issues are waived on appeal,
and we may not address the merits of the numerous claims. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii); see also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., 88 A.3d at 224–
25.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/2/2018
-4-