Meredith, S. v. Meredith, W. ( 2021 )

J-A20016-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
SANDRA L. MEREDITH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
WALTER MEREDITH : No. 182 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered January 15, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County Civil Division at No(s):
No. 2020-2202, C.A.
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: OCTOBER 25, 2021
Sandra L. Meredith (Wife) appeals from the order of court, entered on
January 15, 2021, that involves a petition for special relief filed by Walter
Meredith (Husband) in the context of a divorce action between the parties.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Wife’s issues are waived and,
therefore, we affirm.
Wife and Husband were married in February of 2006. On July 30, 2020,
Wife filed a divorce complaint, requesting inter alia equitable distribution of
the marital property, spousal support, and counsel fees. Additionally, both
parties filed petitions for special relief and other motions, which included a
request for the return of personal property and for exclusive possession of the
marital home. However, Wife suffered a stroke and died on December 5,
2020.
J-A20016-21
Following [W]ife’s death[,] … Husband filed a request [to have]
the matter be dismissed as a result of [W]ife’s death. Wife’s
counsel attempted to substitute [W]ife’s father, sister, or intestate
heirs for the purpose of continuing the divorce proceeding.1 Wife’s
counsel, Angelo A. Papa, [Esq.,] filed this appeal “by and through
her … father, sisters, intestate heirs and counsel” from the
[c]ourt’s [o]rder dated January 14, 2021[,] whereby the [c]ourt
granted the petition for special relief filed by Husband determining
grounds for divorce had not been established as of the date of
[Wife’s] passing, dismissing [Wife’s] [d]ivorce [c]omplaint, and
denying the request to substitute representatives on [W]ife’s
behalf. By [o]rders of February 10, 2021[,] and March 2, 2021,
this [c]ourt directed the filing of a Concise Statement of
Errors/Matters … Complained [o]f on Appeal [pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)]. [Wife] filed a
pleading titled “Answer to Order of Court….” [Wife’s] “Answer” is
an improper 4½ page statement which “incorporates by reference
all prior paragraphs of all pleadings of both parties…” and
“requests judicial notice of all orders of court…[.]” Further, the
answer reproduced multiple pages of pleadings.
1 Answer to [Husband’s] Petition for Special Relief and
Motion for Special Relief; January 12, 2021[.]
Trial Court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion (TCO), 4/6/2021, at 1-2.
As noted by the trial court, after Wife’s attorney filed this appeal on her
behalf, the trial court ordered the filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors
complained of on appeal prior to the post-appeal conference scheduled for
March 24, 2021. On March 2, 2021, the court issued notice that despite the
cancellation of the post-appeal conference, Wife’s Rule 1925(b) statement was
still due prior to March 24, 2021. Wife’s response, entitled “Answer to Order
of Court,” is date stamped March 23, 2021. Thus, it was timely filed.
However, the document does not comply with the requirements as set forth
in Rule 1925(b)(4) and, therefore, based upon the following, we conclude that
no issues were preserved for appellate review.
-2-
J-A20016-21
In Commonwealth v. Lord, … 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1999), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically held that “from this date
forward, in order to preserve their claims for appellate review,
[a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to
file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
[Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure] 1925.” Lord, 719 A.2d
at 309. “Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived.” Id. This Court explained in Riley v. Foley, 783
A.2d 807, 813 (Pa. Super. 2001), that Rule 1925 is a crucial
component of the appellate process because it allows the trial
court to identify and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise
on appeal. This Court has further explained that “a Concise
Statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the
issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent to no Concise
Statement at all.” Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683,
686-87 (Pa. Super. 2001). “Even if the trial court correctly
guesses the issues [a]ppellants raise[] on appeal and writes an
opinion pursuant to that supposition the issues [are] still waived.”
Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908, 911 (Pa. Super.
2002).
Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 400 (Pa. Super. 2004).
As noted by the trial court, the document submitted was a 4½ page
statement, much of it being single spaced that incorporated everything
contained in the pleadings filed by the parties and the orders issued by the
court. Moreover, the court stated that the “Rule 1925(b) [s]tatement must
be sufficiently ‘concise’ and ‘coherent’ such that the trial judge is able to
identify the issues which an appellant actually intends to pursue on appeal,
and the circumstances ‘must not suggest the existence of bad faith.’” TCO at
3-4 (quoting Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 210 (Pa. Super.
2008)). Thus, the trial court concluded that the “[c]oncise [s]tatement of
errors fails to meet statutory requirements, being neither [c]oncise in length
-3-
J-A20016-21
nor in specificity of alleged errors and all issues are waived.” Id. at 4. We
agree.1
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/25/2021
____________________________________________
1 Despite our agreement with the trial court’s conclusion that all issues are
waived, our review also included those items that the court believed were the
errors complained of on appeal. Having considered the certified record, the
parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion authored by
the Honorable Ronald D. Amrhein, Jr., of the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer
County, dated April 6, 2021, we would conclude that Judge Amrhein’s opinion
properly disposed of what we deem were the apparent issues presented and
we would adopt the trial court’s opinion in that regard. See TCO at 3-7.
-4-