Doyle, P. v. Marvin, F. ( 2019 )

J-S65024-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
PATRICK DOYLE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
FOSTER MARVIN, EXECUTOR OF THE : No. 395 MDA 2019
ESTATE OF WANDA A. MARVIN, :
DECEASED AND LUKE A. OSBORN :
AND LEAH KATHRYN TAYLOR :
Appeal from the Order Entered, February 6, 2019,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County,
Civil Division at No(s): 178 CV 2018.
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 23, 2019
Patrick Doyle appeals from the order granting Foster Marvin (Executor
of the Estate of Wanda A. Marvin) judgment on the pleadings in this equity
action, seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of realty.
Mr. Doyle timely filed this appeal on March 8, 2019, and, five days later,
the trial court ordered him to file a concise statement of matters complained
of on appeal within 21 days. See Trial Court 1925(b) Order, 8/31/19. Mr.
Doyle failed to comply with that Order. The trial court and Mr. Marvin contend
this constitutes waiver of all of Mr. Doyle’s appellate issues under Pennsylvania
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S65024-19
Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. See Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 5/3/19;
see also Marvin’s Brief at 4.
Rule 1925 is very strict and very clear. When a trial court orders an
appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, that
statement “shall concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant
intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the
judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). “Issues not included in the Statement
and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4)
are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).
When a trial court orders the filing of a 1925(b) statement, that directive
must be followed to preserve issues for appellate review. See, e.g., Hess v.
Rothschild, 925 A.2d 789, 803 (Pa. Super. 2007). The Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania has established a bright-line rule that “failure to comply with the
court order will result in automatic waiver of all issues on appeal.” Greater
Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d
222, 224 (Pa. 2005) (emphasis added).
Mr. Doyle attempts to blur the bright-line rule of Greater Erie. He
argues that his “counsel was unaware of the [trial court’s 1925(b) Order], as
the order had been placed into a single envelope concerning an unrelated
case.” Doyle’s Reply Brief at 3. Thus, Mr. Doyle does not assert the trial court
failed to mail the order, but merely that his attorney did not read his mail from
the court. He cites to no case law in support of his theory, and we deem this
an invalid excuse for not complying with the trial court’s 1925(b) Order.
-2-
J-S65024-19
Mr. Doyle also believes that no prejudice resulted by his failure to file a
1925(b) statement, because the appellees could have reasonably predicted
what issues he would raise on appeal. “Appellant’s untimely filing of the
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement did not disadvantage any of the parties from the
lack of information as to the issues to be brought on appeal, as the parties
were aware of the issues throughout the litigation.” Doyle’s Reply Brief at 4.
Mr. Doyle misapprehends the purpose of Rule 1925. The Rule is not
concerned with providing notice to the appellees. Instead, the Rule is for the
benefit of the trial judge who issued the 1925(b) Order necessitating the
statement and the appellate courts. This Rule allows the trial court to author
a cogent 1925(a) Opinion analyzing the appellant’s claims of error and thereby
permitting the higher courts to conduct a meaningful appellate review of the
trial court’s reasoning on each of those issues. Without a 1925(b) statement,
Mr. Doyle handicapped both the trial court and this Court. He deprived the
trial court of the opportunity to answer his claims of errors, and he deprived
us of the opportunity to appraise the correctness of those answers.
We therefore order that the three appellate issues raised in Mr. Doyle’s
appellate brief are DISMISSED as waived.
Order affirmed.
-3-
J-S65024-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/23/2019
-4-