J-S92034-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
TRUSTEE FOR MASTR ASSET BACKED : PENNSYLVANIA
SECURITIES TRUST 2006-ABI, :
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ALAN M. MURDOCH AND CORRINE C. :
MURDOCH, :
:
Appellants : No. 883 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order May 19, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Civil Division, at No(s): 2013-01497
BEFORE: SHOGAN, MOULTON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 07, 2017
Alan M. and Corrine C. Murdoch (the Murdochs) appeal from the May
19, 2016 order that granted the motion for summary judgment filed by U.S.
Bank National Association, as trustee for MASTR Asset Backed Securities
Trust 2006-ABI (U.S. Bank), in this mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm.
In September 2005, the Murdochs executed a mortgage in favor of
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., on property located in McMurray, Washington
County, Pennsylvania. In August 2007, the Murdochs stopped making their
monthly payments. Wells Fargo assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank, which
notified the Murdochs of its intention to foreclose. U.S. Bank filed a
complaint in mortgage foreclosure in March 2013. The trial court ultimately
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S92034-16
granted U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment by order of May 19,
2016.
The Murdochs timely filed a notice of appeal. By order served on June
21, 2016, the trial court ordered the Murdochs to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal within 21 days. The Murdochs filed their
statement 22 days later, on Tuesday, July 13, 2016.
Our Supreme Court [has held] that failure to comply with
the minimal requirements 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. Indeed, our Supreme
Court does not countenance anything less than stringent
application of waiver pursuant to Rule 1925(b): [A] bright-line
rule eliminates the potential for inconsistent results that existed
[previously], when ... appellate courts had discretion to address
or to waive issues raised in non-compliant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statements. Succinctly put, it is no longer within this Court’s
discretion to ignore the internal deficiencies of Rule 1925(b)
statements.
Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d
222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (quotation marks, citations, and
emphasis omitted). “[E]ven if a trial court ignores the untimeliness of a Rule
1925(b) statement and addresses the merits, those claims still must be
considered waived.” Id. at 225.
The Murdochs acknowledge that their 1925(b) statement was filed on
July 13, 2016; however, they claim that this was “exactly 21 days” after the
order was served on June 21, 2016. The Murdochs’ Reply Brief at 4. Their
math is wrong: as there are 30 days in June, the 21 st day after June 21 was
-2-
J-S92034-16
in fact July 12. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that the
Murdochs have waived all of their issues on appeal.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/7/2017
-3-