Madigan, M. v. Vereb, A.

J-A13010-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MICHAEL K. MADIGAN, JR., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
AMANDA N. VEREB,
Appellee No. 848 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order April 25, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Civil Division at No(s): 708 of 2014
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED MAY 20, 2015
On June 17, 2014, the trial court ordered Madigan to file a Rule
1925(b) statement. The Rule 236 notice appended to the order provides
that the lower court prothonotary sent a copy of the order to Appellant by
mail on June 18, 2014. The order stated that Madigan “shall file of record in
this [c]ourt and serve on the undersigned” the Rule 1925(b) statement
“within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, pursuant to Rule
1925(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure[.]” Order, filed 6/17/14. See
also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2). Thirty-five days later, on July 23, 2014, the trial
court entered an order noting that Madigan had not complied with the June
17 order.
A review of the docket entries and certified record discloses that
Madigan never complied with Rule 1925(b). He never filed a concise
J-A13010-15
statement of matters complained of on appeal. Accordingly, we are
constrained to find the issues raised on appeal waived. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii); Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998)
(“Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”).1
We recently reiterated the “automatic nature” of the waiver of issues
for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) and that “we are required to address
the issue once it comes to our attention.” Greater Erie Indus.
Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (en banc). In Presque Isle Downs, the en banc panel
examined Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases construing Rule 1925(b) and
noted that “our Supreme Court does not countenance anything less than
stringent application of waiver pursuant” to that rule. Id. (citation omitted).
In any event, we note that even if we had not found waiver, we would
have affirmed the trial court’s order.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
1
Madigan is not entitled to any particular advantages based on his lack of
legal training. See Cole v. Czegan, 722 A.2d 686, 687 (Pa. Super. 1998).
Indeed, our Supreme Court has warned that “any layperson choosing to
represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent,
assume the risk that his lack of expertise and legal training will prove his
undoing.” Vann v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Bd.
of Review, 494 A.2d 1081, 1086 (Pa. 1985) (citation omitted).
-2-
J-A13010-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/20/2015
-3-