J-S25003-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ROC FUNDING GROUP, LLC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STOP 26-RIVERBEND, LLC AND : PERCY SQUIRE, ESQUIRE, AS : PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR : No. 156 EDA 2021 THE ESTATE OF RUTH SQUIRE : Appellants Appeal from the Order Entered November 23, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s): No. C-48-CV-2020-00421

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2021 Appellants, Stop 26-Riverbend, LLC and Percy Squire, Esquire, personal representative of the estate of Ruth Squire, appeal from the trial court’s November 23, 2020 order denying their petition to strike a confessed judgment entered against them.1 In addition, Appellants’ counsel of record, ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

Phillip A. Drumheiser, Esq., has filed a petition to withdraw from representing Ms. Squire. We affirm the trial court’s order and grant Attorney Drumheiser’s petition to withdraw.

We need not provide a recitation of the underlying facts of this matter as they are not pertinent to our disposition. Instead, we only note that the trial court issued its order denying Appellants’ petition to strike the confessed judgment entered against them on November 23, 2020. Appellants subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal on December 24, 2020.2 On January 26, 2021, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), directing Appellants to “file[] of record

____________________________________________

counsel, within the time prescribed by these rules. After the notice of appeal or petition for review is filed, substitution shall be effected in the appellate court in accordance with this paragraph.”); see also Rule to Show Cause Order, 9/29/21. In response to our rule to show cause order, Appellants’ counsel submitted an application to substitute Ms. Squire with her son, Percy Squire, Esquire, personal representative of her estate. We granted the application for substitution of a party on October 15, 2021, and now direct the Prothonotary’s office to amend the caption to reflect that Mr. Squire, as personal representative of Ms. Squire’s estate, is proceeding in her place.

-2- J-S25003-21

and serve[] on the trial judge a concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this [o]rder,” i.e., on or before February 16, 2021. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order, 1/26/21 (single page).3 In its order, the trial court advised Appellants that “a failure to comply with such direction may be considered by the appellate court as a waiver of all objections to the order, ruling, or other matter complained of….”

Id. On February 19, 2021, the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Therein, it explained that Appellants failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.

It stated that “[t]he deadline for [Appellants] to file the [c]oncise [s]tatement was Tuesday, February 16, 2021. [Appellants] failed to file the [c]oncise [s]tatement by the February 16, 2021 deadline. As of the filing of this [opinion], no [c]oncise [s]tatement has been received from [Appellants].”

Trial Court Opinion, 2/19/21, at 1-2.

This Court has explained that “[w]henever a trial court orders an appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), the appellant must comply in a timely manner.”

Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 225 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations and brackets omitted; emphasis in original). However, this Court has observed that “there are still operative exceptions to Rule 1925(b) waiver with regard to timeliness. In determining ____________________________________________

-3- J-S25003-21

whether an appellant has waived his issues on appeal based on non- compliance with [Rule] 1925, it is the trial court’s order that triggers an appellant’s obligation [and,]… therefore, we look first to the language of that order.” Id. (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).

Here, the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order directed Appellants to file a concise statement within 21 days of its order and warned that noncompliance may result in the waiver of their objections. See Commonwealth v. Medina, 209 A.3d 992, 997 (Pa. Super. 2019) (ascertaining that the trial court’s order met the requirements of Rule 1925(b)(3)(iv) where it advised the appellant that noncompliance with its instruction to file a Rule 1925(b) statement “may be considered by the appellate court as a waiver of all objections to the [o]rder, ruling or other matters complained of”); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iv) (“The judge’s order directing the filing and service of a Statement shall specify … that any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.”).4 Nevertheless, Appellants did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement ____________________________________________

25, 2021) (“If the trial court’s noncompliance with the Rule causes the party’s noncompliance, courts have not found waiver.”). As a result, we remind the trial court to comply with all the requirements of Rule 1925, including the recently amended Rule 1925(b)(3)(iii), when issuing its Rule 1925(b) order.

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iii) (“The judge’s order directing the filing and service of a Statement shall specify … that the Statement shall be served on the judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) and both the place the appellant can (Footnote Continued Next Page)

-4- J-S25003-21

within the 21-day time period. Consequently, Appellants have failed to preserve any issues for our review. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying their petition to strike.5 Order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/16/2021

____________________________________________

serve the Statement in person and the address to which the appellant can mail the Statement. In addition, the judge may provide an email, facsimile, or other alternative means for the appellant to serve the Statement on the judge[.]”); see also Gibson, 2021 WL 240477, at *2 n.4.

Because all of Appellants’ issues are waived due to their failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement, we need not address whether Mr. Squire may represent Ms. Squire’s estate on a pro se basis. Nevertheless, we grant Attorney Drumheiser’s petition to withdraw.

-5-