In re Estate of Boyle
77 A.3d 674
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellants filed a Rule 1925(b) statement after a court-directed deadline in the Orphans’ Court proceeding.
- The 1925(b) order required filing within 21 days and warned that undisputed issues would be waived if not timely raised.
- Appeals were initially deemed untimely based on a facially untimely 1925(b) statement, prompting a remand for the filing date.
- The trial court held a brief evidentiary hearing and found the 1925(b) statement was served on September 11, 2012, but not filed with the clerk until September 20, 2012.
- Docket records showed notice of the 1925(b) order was sent to parties; the court complied with Rule 236(a)(2)(b) notices.
- The panel reaffirmed waiver, holding the Rule 1925(b) statement was untimely despite service on the trial judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did failure to timely file the 1925(b) statement waive issues? | Appellants argue timeliness/notice negate waiver. | Appellees contend strict waiver applies for untimely filing. | Yes, issues waived for untimely filing. |
| Was the 1925(b) filing date properly determined by the trial court? | Appellants contend notice/filing dates were not properly established. | Appellees assert the trial court correctly determined September 20 filing date. | Trial court’s datefinding supported waiver (filing untimely). |
Key Cases Cited
- Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 607 Pa. 341, 6 A.3d 1002 (Pa.2010) (expands Rule 1925(b) standards and severities for noncompliance)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa.1998) (bright-line waiver rule for failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement)
- Commonwealth v. Schofield, 585 Pa. 389, 888 A.2d 771 (Pa.2005) (strict waiver consequence for noncompliance with Rule 1925(b))
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa.2005) (same waiver principle under Rule 1925(b))
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super.2007) (notice requirements under Rule 236(b) affect waiver analysis; lack of notice avoids waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 867 A.2d 585 (Pa.Super.2005) (en banc: notice of Rule 1925(b) order is crucial for waiver analysis)
- In re L.M. (termination of parental rights), 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super.2007) (context for Waiver and notice discussion linked to L.M. guidance)