# Middleton v. Brown Middleton

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · December 2, 2002 · 2002 Pa. Super. 371

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737264

## Case

- **Full name:** Edmund L. MIDDLETON A/K/A Edmund Lewis Middleton, Appellant, v. Lenora H. BROWN MIDDLETON, Appellee
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 2, 2002
- **Citations:** 2002 Pa. Super. 371; 812 A.2d 1241; 2002 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3768
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence
- **Judges:** Del Sole, P.J., Ford Elliott, Joyce, Stevens, Musmanno, Orie Melvin, Lally-Green, Klein, and Bender
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737264

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding court’s failure to credit husband for one-half fair rental value of marital residence was not abuse of discretion even though husband voluntarily and generously paid mortgages and expenses of marital home in excess of court - 14 - J-A22038-16 ordered amount for period …

## Opinion text

Concurring
JOYCE, J.:
¶ 1 I agree with the Majority’s ultimate resolution of the equitable distribution issues and the absence of waiver under the unique circumstances of the case at bar. However, I am compelled to write separately to express my concerns over the Majority’s discussion of waiver and Pa. R.A.P.1925(b) statements.
¶ 2 Put simply, the instant case presents a situation where the trial court extended the period of time in which a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement could be filed, and as a result, it is proper in this instance for our Court to decline to find waiver. The Majority’s lengthy discussion and examples of situations where waiver may or may not exist pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) is unnecessary and could cause confusion among the bench and bar.
¶ 3 The procedural history of the case at bar as it relates to Pa.R.A.P.1925 is unique, but it does not however, create a new rule. The law of this Commonwealth remains as it was succinctly set forth by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415 , 719 A.2d 306 (1998). Lord made it clear that failing to timely file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to 1925(b), when ordered to do so by the trial court, renders issues not raised therein waived on appeal. Since the Majority Opinion could be interpreted to stand in contrast to Lord , I concur in the result only.
¶ 4 FORD ELLIOTT, STEVENS and ORIE MELVIN, JJ., join.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737264. Public record. Not legal advice.