Wells Fargo Bank v. Stroup, S. ( 2017 )

J-A19023-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
WELLS FARGO BANK : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SCOTT STROUP, KAREN STROUP, :
AND MIKE JOHANNES, :
: No. 7 EDA 2017
Appellants :
Appeal from the Order December 5, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County
Civil Division at No(s): No- 13-0084
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED July 3, 2017
Appellants, defendants below, appeal pro se from the December 5,
2016 Order denying their “Motion to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale and for Equitable
Relief In Rem” in this mortgage foreclosure action. We dismiss this appeal.
The underlying facts are not relevant to our disposition. On December
21, 2016, Appellants timely appealed the court’s denial of their “Motion to
Set Aside Sheriffs Sale and for Equitable Relief In Rem.” On December 22,
2016, the trial court entered an Order directing Appellants to file a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Statement within 21 days. The trial court docket indicates that it
mailed Appellant a copy of the order the same day. Appellants were, thus,
required to file their Rule 1925(b) Statement on or before January 12, 2017.
Appellants failed to comply with this directive, instead filing their Rule
1925(b) Statement on January 17, 2017.
J-A19023-17
By its plain text, Rule 1925(b) requires every “[a]ppellant [to] file of
record [a Rule 1925(b)] Statement and concurrently [] serve the judge”
when directed to do so. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). The Rule also states “that
any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served
pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.” Id. at 1925(b)(3)(iv).
Our Supreme Court has held that Rule 1925(b) is a bright-line rule.
Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011).
As noted above, the trial court’s order required that Appellants file
their Rule 1925(b) Statement no later than January 12, 2017. Appellants
filed their statement on January 17, 2017. As Appellants filed their Rule
1925(b) Statement five days late, following our Supreme Court’s instructions
in Hill, we deem all of Appellants’ issues on appeal waived. See id.
Even if Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) Statement was timely filed, we would
still be constrained to dismiss this appeal as Appellants’ Brief to this Court is
substantially defective. Appellants purport to raise eight issues on appeal,
none of which actually relate to the substance of the Order on appeal, and
none of which Appellants support with citation to the record or relevant
authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119; Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766,
771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that
are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims
with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to
legal authorities.” (citations omitted)); Harkins v. Calumet Realty Co.,
-2-
J-A19023-17
614 A.2d 699, 703 (Pa. Super. 1992) (explaining that issues not developed
in the argument section of a brief are waived).
Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from the argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/3/2017
-3-