J-S13001-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
F.M., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
G.M.,
Appellee No. 1603 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order April 27, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at No(s): 1601V7294
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 16, 2017
F.M. (Appellant) appeals pro se from the April 27, 2016 order that
denied his protection from abuse petition and vacated the temporary
protection from abuse order that had previously been entered. We affirm.
An extensive recitation of the underlying facts and procedural history
of this case is not necessary to our disposition here. Essentially, Appellant
claimed rights to the family home as executor of his mother’s estate and
sought the eviction of his 75-year-old father, G.M. (Appellee), in order to
acquire exclusive possession of the property. To accomplish this goal,
Appellant filed a protection from abuse (PFA) petition against his father on
January 20, 2016. An ex parte hearing resulted in the issuance of a
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13001-17
temporary PFA order, directing “Appellee not to abuse, threaten, stalk or
harass Appellant; order[ing] Appellee to have no contact with the Appellant;
and evict[ing] and exclud[ing] [Appellee] from” the property “that Appellant
alleged was his residence.” Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 10/21/16, at 1.
Although a number of continuances occurred at Appellant’s request, a
limited hearing resulted in the deletion of the eviction and no-contact
provisions of the original temporary order. Then, after receiving testimony
at a hearing at which both parties were represented by counsel, the court
issued its ruling denying Appellant’s PFA petition and vacating the temporary
order. Appellant filed a timely appeal on May 26, 2016. Subsequently, on
June 9, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The order
stated in its entirety that:
Appellant, [F.M.], shall file of record, and serve on the trial judge
a concise statement or errors complained of on appeal within
twenty[-]one (21) days hereof, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
The statement shall be filed with the clerk of family court, 1501
Arch Street, 11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102. In addition, the
statement shall be timely served upon the chambers of Judge
Christopher Mallios, 1501 Arch Street, Suite 1422, Philadelphia
PA 19102.
Filing of record and service of the statement on the judge shall
be in person or by mail as provided in Pa.R.A.P. 121(a).
Any issue not properly included in the statement timely filed and
served shall be deemed waived.
Rule 1925(b) Order, 6/9/16.
-2-
J-S13001-17
Appellant did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement, which prompted the
trial court to suggest in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that Appellant’s appeal
should be dismissed. Specifically, the court stated:
Appellant failed to comply with this Court's June 9, 2016,
Order directing him to file a Concise Statement of Errors
Complained of on Appeal in accordance with … Rule 1925(b),
therefore this Appeal should be dismissed without further
consideration.
“The purpose of Rule 1925 is to narrow the focus of an
appeal to those issues which the appellant wishes to raise on
appeal.” Mahonski v. Engel, 2016 PA Super 172 (Pa. Super.
Aug. 8, 2016). The Rule, “facilitate[s] appellate review by
requiring the trial court to supplement the record with an opinion
addressing the merits of the issues raised in the appeal.” Com.
v. Stilley, 689 A.2d 242, 247 (Pa. Super. 1997). “Failure to file
a timely 1925(b) statement renders no issue preserved for
appellate review.” Com. v. Overby, 744 A.2d 797, 797 (Pa.
Super. 2000).
This Court timely directed Appellant to file a statement in
accordance with Rule 1925(b) and he did not comply with that
Order. With no specific allegations of error to address, this Court
is not able to address any specific issues or explain its reasoning
for the ruling beyond those which appear in the record. The
instant appeal should be dismissed due to Appellant's failure to
comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
TCO at 5-6.
We agree with the trial court, and reiterate that based upon
Appellant’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, no issue has been
preserved for appellate review, i.e., Appellant has waived all issues. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not
raised in accordance with the provision of this paragraph (b)(4) are
waived.”).
-3-
J-S13001-17
As explained above, the trial court issued an order that required
Appellant to submit a Rule 1925(b) statement and Appellant failed to
respond. When a trial court orders an appellant to file a Rule 1925(b)
statement, the appellant must comply in a timely manner. Commonwealth
v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). A failure to comply will result in
waiver of all issues. Id.; see also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v.
Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 225 (Pa. Super. 2014). Here,
Appellant failed to submit a Rule 1925(b) statement; thus, we conclude that
any issues he wished to raise on appeal have been waived.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/16/2017
-4-