: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

J-A23044-22  

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

IN RE: I.M.R., AN ALLEGED 
INCAPACITATED PERSON 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: WILLIAM CARDWELL 

Appeal from the Order Entered April 8, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at 
No(s):  2021-281 

 No. 728 MDA 2022 

EFORE:   BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* 

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 16, 2023 
 

Appellant’s  outright  failure  to  file  a  timely  Rule  1925(b)  statement 

should  not  be  rewarded.  Randomly  ignoring  the  rules  of  waiver  will  lead  to 

inconsistent  decisions  of  this  court,  permit  disparate  treatment  of  litigants, 

unfairly discriminate against those who follow the rules and cause confusion 

among  the  trial  judges.    Thus,  I  respectfully  disagree  with  Majority’s 

conclusion  that  this  case  should  be  remanded  for  the  preparation  of  a 

supplemental  opinion.  Rather,  I  would  affirm  the  decision  of  the  Orphans’ 

Court that all of Appellant’s claims are waived. 

This Court has long recognized that a party who files an untimely Rule 

1925(b)  statement  waives  all  of  his  issues  on  appeal.    Commonwealth  v. 

____________________________________________ 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

    A

 

 

  B

  

J-A23044-22 

Thompson, 39 A.3d 335, 341 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted); see also 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).  In Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque 

Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa.Super. 2014), an en banc panel of this 

Court concluded that “it is no longer within this Court’s  discretion  to ignore 

the internal deficiencies of 1925(b) statements” and reaffirmed the rule that 

a party who files an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement has waived all issues 

raised on appeal.  Id. at 224, 227; see also Commonwealth v. Castillo, 

888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (reaffirming the “bright-line rule first set forth 

in [Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998)]” and holding that an 

untimely Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver of all issues on appeal). 

Instantly,  the  orphans’  court  ordered  Appellant  to  file  a  Rule  1925(b) 

concise statement within 21 days of the date of its May 5, 2022 order, or by 

May 26, 2022.  Appellant filed his initial Rule 1925(b) on May 31, 2022, five 

days after the expiration of the deadline.  Appellant further acknowledged in 

a  certificate  of  service  that  this  concise  statement  was  mailed  on  May  27, 

2022, which is also past the deadline.   

Thereafter, Appellant filed an untimely amended concise statement on 

June 13, 2022.  The record contains no indication that Appellant sought, or 

that the orphans’ court granted, an extension of time for filing.  The orphans’ 

court correctly declined to address the substantive merits of Appellant’s claims 

in its Rule 1925(a) opinion and found waiver under Rule 1925.  See orphan’s 

court Rule 1925(a) opinion, 5/27/22 at 1, ¶ 3. 

- 2 - 

J-A23044-22 

Respectfully,  the  Majority’s  reliance  on  Rahn  v.  Consol.  Rail  Corp., 

254 A.3d 738 (Pa.Super. 2021), in support of its conclusion that the Orphans’ 

Court’s  order  is  facially  deficient  under  Rule  1925(b)(3)(iii),  is  misplaced.  

Rahn is distinguishable in that it involved a situation concerning the improper 

service of a timely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, which is clearly not the case 

here.  Moreover, the  non-precedential decision in Boyle v. Main Line Heath, 

Inc., 272 A3d 466 (Pa.Super. 2022), is distinguishable.  

Accordingly,  I  would  find  that  Appellant  has  waived  all  his  claims  on 

appeal by failing to timely comply with Rule 1925(b) and would affirm the April 

8, 2022 final decree of the orphans’ court. 

Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 

- 3 -