J-A17014-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ASSOCIATION : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
LINDA BONNIE SCRIPNICENCU :
:
Appellant : No. 3039 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment August 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2014-04415
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2017
Appellant, Linda Bonnie Scripnicencu, appeals from the summary
judgment entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of
Appellee, Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), in this mortgage
foreclosure action. On March 10, 2005, George Scripnicencu (Appellant’s
husband) executed and delivered a promissory note to Buyers Home
Mortgage, Inc., in consideration for a loan in the amount of $228,000.00,
plus interest. That day, Appellant and her husband executed and delivered a
mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”), as
nominee for Buyers Homes Mortgage, for residential property located in
Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania. MERS assigned the mortgage to Suntrust
Mortgage, Inc., who later assigned the mortgage to FNMA. Appellant’s
_________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17014-17
husband died on April 15, 2014.
On June 25, 2014, FNMA filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint
against Appellant. Appellant filed preliminary objections on September 8,
2014; FNMA responded on December 4, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the court
overruled Appellant’s preliminary objections. Appellant filed an answer and
new matter on May 4, 2015. FNMA replied on May 15, 2015. On April 5,
2016, FNMA filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant filed a
response on May 8, 2016. On August 18, 2016, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of FNMA, in the amount of $244,522.38, plus interest, and
for foreclosure of the mortgaged premises. Appellant timely filed a notice of
appeal on September 16, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the court ordered
Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
within twenty-one days, per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Although the court’s order
was docketed as entered on October 7, 2016, the same docket makes clear
that notice of the court’s order, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236, was not sent to
Appellant until October 12, 2016. On November 2, 2016, Appellant timely
filed her concise statement.
Preliminarily, we observe appellants must timely comply whenever the
trial court orders them to file a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa.
415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998). Regarding civil cases:
Our Supreme Court intended the holding in Lord to
operate as a bright-line rule, such that failure to comply
-2-
J-A17014-17
with the minimal requirement of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will
result in automatic waiver of the issues raised. Given
the automatic nature of this type of waiver, 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) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). In civil cases, under Rule
1925(b): (1) the trial court must issue an order directing an appellant to file
a concise statement of errors within twenty-one days of that order; (2) the
trial court must file the order with the prothonotary; (3) the prothonotary
must enter the order on the docket; (4) the prothonotary must give written
notice of the entry of the order to each party, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236;
and (5) the prothonotary must record Rule 236 notice on the docket. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Forest Highlands Community Ass’n v. Hammer, 879
A.2d 223 (Pa.Super. 2005). See also Pa.R.A.P. 108(a), (b) (explaining date
of entry of order shall be date on which clerk mails or delivers copies of
order to parties, consistent with Rule 236).
Instantly, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 16,
2016. On October 7, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a Rule
1925(b) concise statement of errors, within twenty-one days. Appellant filed
her concise statement on November 2, 2016, raising four issues. In its Rule
1925(a) opinion, the trial court declined to reach Appellant’s issues, deciding
they were waived for failure to file her concise statement by October 28,
-3-
J-A17014-17
2016. Although the court’s order was docketed as entered on October 7,
2016, the same docket makes clear Rule 236 notice of the court’s order was
not sent to Appellant until October 12, 2016. Thus, Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
statement was due by November 2, 2016, the date she timely filed her
statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 108; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Forest Highlands,
supra. Accordingly, we remand the case for the trial court to issue a
supplemental opinion addressing all properly preserved issues raised in
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement.1 The court shall have thirty (30) days
from the date of remand to file its supplemental opinion. Oral argument
shall proceed as scheduled on June 27, 2017, unless this Court is notified
otherwise.
Case remanded with instructions. Panel jurisdiction is retained.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/6/2017
____________________________________________
1
In its recitation of the facts, the trial court gave a brief explanation of why
it granted summary judgment in favor of FNMA. Nevertheless, the court did
not address Appellant’s precise issues presented in her concise statement or
provide any citations to relevant law or to the certified record.
-4-