holding that a voluminous Rule 1925(b) statement is not a basis for waiver when the appellant narrowed the issues in his statement of questions involved in his brief, there was no “bad faith” or “attempt to thwart the appellate process” by the appellant, and ultimately there was no “impair[ment of] meaningful appellate review.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a voluminous Rule 1925(b) statement is not a basis for waiver when the appellant narrowed the issues in his statement of questions involved in his brief, there was no “bad faith” or “attempt to thwart the appellate process” by the appellant, and ultimately there was no “impair[ment of] meaningful appellate review.”
- stating that “while the number of issues raised in the subject Rule 1925(b) statement may have been the result of a poorly reasoned appellate strategy, because the trial court did not find that appellants acted in bad faith, there was no violation of a Rule of Appellate Procedure”
- holding that identifying twenty-four issues, in a complicated, multi-count case against many defendants that involved extensive pre-trial proceedings and a two-week trial, did not result in waiver where there was no indication that the appellant acted in bad faith
- finding that appellants had preserved their claims, despite raising 24 issues with sub-issues, because the appellants had “brought forth a complicated multi-count lawsuit with numerous defendants resulting in many trial court rulings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EAKIN,
Dissenting.
I dissent, as I believe appellant waived appellate review by raising a quantity of issues in her Pa. R.A.P.1925(b) statement sufficient to impair meaningful review.
Rule 1925(b) provided: 1
The lower court forthwith may enter an order directing the appellant to file of record in the lower court and serve on the trial judge a concise statement of the matters complained of on the appeal no later than 14 days after entry of such order. A failure to comply with such direction may bo considered by the appellate court as a waiver of all objections to the order, ruling or other matter complained of.
Pa.R.A.P.1925(b). This Rule required appellant, when directed, to file a concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal.
“Rule 1925 is [] a crucial component of the appellate process.” Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415 , 719 A.2d 306, 308 (1998). “[It] is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal.” Id. This Rule guarantees a trial judge’s ability to focus on the issues raised, and to allow for meaningful and effective appellate review. Commonwealth v. Schofield, 585 Pa. 389, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (2005). The Rule is there for a meaningful purpose, which purpose is defeated by scattershot prolixity such as this.
*388 The trial court ordered appellant “to file a concise, self-contained and intelligible statement of the matters complained of on [][a]ppeal____” Trial Court Order Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), 2/10/04. The order informed appellant “non-compliance with this Order may be deemed a waiver of all objections to the Order or other matters complained of on Appeal.” Id. Appellant, however, filed a statement that did not comply with either the language or purpose of Rule 1925. Appellant’s 15-page statement consists of nearly 30 issues and sub-issues, each of which includes argument. Such a statement did not aid the trial court in identifying the issues appellant planned to raise on appeal; rather, the trial court found it “ha[d] been greatly impeded in its ability to prepare on [sic] Opinion that fully and cogently discusses the issues [appellant] intended] to raise on appeal due to the number of issues [appellant] ha[d] raised in her 1925(b) statement.” Trial Court Opinion, 2/1/05, at 6.
There comes a point when too much is simply too much. Appellant’s statement was not concise and did not aid the trial court in focusing on the issues she planned to raise on appeal. Since appellant failed to comply with Rule 1925(b) by not providing the court with a concise statement of the issues she intended to raise on appeal, I would uphold the ruling of the Superior Court.
. Rule 1925 has been amended, and the text of those amendments was effective July 25, 2007.