Hatchigian, D. v. Otter. L. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-A24030-16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    DAVID HATCHIGIAN                                 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant
    v.
    LAWRENCE M. OTTER, ESQUIRE, JOSEPH
    P. CARANCI, JR., ESQUIRE, BART LEVY,
    ESQUIRE, DAVID DENNBERG, ESQUIRE
    Appellees                 No. 2289 EDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 19, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Civil Division at No(s): April Term, 2011 No. 00329
    BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and SOLANO, J.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.:                          FILED AUGUST 17, 2016
    David Hatchigian appeals, pro se, from the judgment entered on June
    19, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following the
    denial of Hatchigian’s post-trial motion. After filing a timely notice of appeal,
    Hatchigian was ordered to file a statement of errors complained of on
    appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court granted Hatchigian an
    extension of time to August 17, 2015 to file the document.         In response,
    Hatchigian filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for
    Post-Trial Relief” on August 21, 2015.1        The trial court determined the
    document was untimely and was vague to the point of making the court
    ____________________________________________
    1
    We note August 17, 2015 was a Monday and August 21, 2015 was a
    Friday.
    J-A24030-16
    guess as to the errors alleged.         Accordingly, the trial court determined all
    issues were not properly preserved for appellate review due to the failure to
    comply with the dictates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.2 After a thorough review of the
    submissions by the parties, the certified record, and relevant law, we agree
    with the trial court that all issues have been waived, albeit on different
    grounds. (See footnote 3 infra). Therefore, we affirm.
    Briefly,   Hatchigian,    acting   pro   se,    filed   a   claim   against   the
    defendant/appellees claiming negligent representation, breach of contract
    and breach of fiduciary duty in their representation of him in an insurance
    matter.     A jury found no legal malpractice had taken place, but awarded
    Hatchigian $500.00 for breach of contract and $1.00 for breach of fiduciary
    duty.
    As noted, after the denial of his post-trial motion, Hatchigian filed a
    timely notice of appeal. On July 13, 2015, the trial court entered an order
    compelling Hatchigian to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal
    with the trial court by August 3, 2015.                The order complied with the
    requirement of Rule 1925 and was served on Hatchigian pursuant to the
    dictates of Pa.R.C.P. 236.        Hatchigian sought an extension of time, which
    was granted on July 16, 2016, giving him until August 17, 2015 to file the
    Rule 1925(b) statement.
    ____________________________________________
    2
    Nonetheless, in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial judge addressed the
    three issues he believed Hatchigian had meant to raise.
    -2-
    J-A24030-16
    Upon     receipt   of the    document,3       the   trial   court    determined    it
    significantly   failed    to   comply   with   the    requirements         of   Rule   1925.
    Specifically, the trial court stated:
    Furthermore, [Hatchigian’s] eleven page brief is neither concise
    nor properly itemized. [Hatchigian] has therefore waived all
    issues on appeal because “the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement must
    be sufficiently ‘concise’ and ‘coherent’ such that the trial court
    may be able to identify the issues to be raised on appeal.”
    Jiricko v. GEICO Ins. Co., 
    947 A.2d 206
    , 210 (Pa. Super.
    2008). In Jiricko v. GEICO Ins. Co., the Superior Court found
    waiver of all issues on appeal because the pro-se appellant’s
    statement is an incoherent, confusing, redundant, defamatory
    rant accusing GEICO’s attorney and the trial court judge of
    conspiring to deprive Appellant of his constitutional rights.” 
    Id. at 213
    . In this case, [Hatchigian’s] brief is similarly confusing
    and plaintiff accuses the defendants and defense counsel of
    violating the Rules of Professional Conduct at trial.
    Amazingly, [Hatchigian’s] brief is both too lengthy and
    insufficiently specific for this Court to properly determine what
    precise issues [Hatchigian] seeks to appeal. A statement of
    errors “must be specific enough for the trial court to identify and
    address each issue the appellant wishes to raise on appeal.”
    Mazurek v. Russell, 
    96 A.3d 372
    , 377 (Pa. Super. 2014). In
    the brief, [Hatchigian] often fails to provide sufficient details so
    that the Court can determine to what he is referring. This Court
    has nonetheless attempted to discern the issues that
    [Hatchigian] raises on appeal and address them below.
    ____________________________________________
    3
    The trial court also determined the document had been untimely filed. We
    note that Hatchigian asserts he attempted to serve the trial court with the
    document in a timely manner, but could not do so as the judge’s chambers
    were closed when he arrived. Hatchigian claims he delivered a copy of the
    document to the chambers of a different judge instead. Because we are able
    to resolve this matter on other grounds, we need not formally determine
    whether all appellate issues were waived due to untimely filing of the
    document.
    -3-
    J-A24030-16
    Trial Court Opinion, 12/24/2015, at 5-6.
    [W]hen an appellant fails to identify in a vague Pa.R.A.P.
    1925(b) statement the specific issue he/she wants to raise on
    appeal, the issue is waived, even if the trial court guesses
    correctly and addresses the issue in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
    opinion.
    Commonwealth v. Lemon, 
    804 A.2d 34
    , 38 (Pa. Super. 2002). See also,
    202 Island Car Wash, LP v. Monridge Const., Inc., 
    913 A.2d 922
    , 925,
    n.2 (Pa. Super. 2006) and Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 
    939 A.2d 34
     36463 (Pa.
    Super. 2007).
    Accordingly, all issues have been waived.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/17/2016
    -4-