The Bank of New York Mellon v. Brooks, R., The Bank of New York Mellon v. Brooks, R. No. 1362 EDA 2016

Bank of New York Mellon (plaintiff) obtained summary judgment in a Northampton County foreclosure action on April 1, 2016; Richard H. Brooks, Jr. (appellant) appealed on April 28, 2016.
Trial court ordered appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement within 21 days (order docketed May 3, 2016).
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was docketed and time-stamped by the prothonotary on May 25, 2016 (one day late); the statement’s certificate of service indicates appellant’s counsel mailed it on May 23, 2016 (within the 21-day period).
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement argued the bank violated loss-mitigation rules (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g)) and thus was barred from judgment.
The appellee did not contest timeliness; the Superior Court nevertheless raised the timeliness issue sua sponte because untimely Rule 1925 filings ordinarily waive appellate issues.
Because the record did not unequivocally establish untimeliness (certificate of service shows mailing before deadline), the Superior Court remanded under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(1) for the trial court to determine whether the statement was timely (allowing discovery, hearing, or requiring USPS proof of mailing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement timely filed?	Brooks asserts he mailed the statement within the 21‑day period (certificate shows May 23).	Bank did not challenge timeliness; court must nonetheless ensure compliance.	Remanded to trial court to determine timeliness; produce USPS Form 3817 or hold discovery/hearing if needed.
Does untimely Rule 1925(b) statement waive all appellate issues?	N/A (appellant seeks review on merits).	Bank relies on waiver doctrine if statement untimely.	Court reiterates that untimely filing generally waives issues, citing precedent, so timeliness must be resolved before appellate merits considered.
May appellate court remand to resolve timeliness?	N/A	N/A	Yes — Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(1) authorizes remand for determination whether statement was timely.
Is remand unnecessary if record unequivocally shows lateness?	N/A	N/A	If record plainly shows untimeliness, no remand is needed (Presque Isle). Here remand required because record is ambiguous.

Greater Erie Industrial Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) (untimely Rule 1925(b) statement generally waives issues; remand unnecessary where record unequivocally shows late filing)
Griffin v. Central Sprinkler Corp., 823 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 2003) (trial court fact-finding, including deposition of prothonotary, can establish whether a filing was received before a deadline and affect statute-of-limitations determinations)