Spink, C. v. Spink, L. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S27014-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CLAIRE SPINK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. LEAH (MCDOWELL) SPINK (MCDONNELL), TRUSTEE, JACK SPINK (DECEASED) ESTATE Appellee No. 1520 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Order August 26, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): FD 88-005329 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., and STABILE, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MAY 28, 2014 Appellant, Claire Spink, appeals pro se from the order entered in the petition for special relief. We affirm. An appellant must timely comply whenever the trial court orders a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Commonwealth v Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998). h the minimal requirements of Rule 1925(b) will result in automatic waiver Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 2014 PA Super 50, *2 (filed March 11, 2014) (en banc Court does not countenance anything less than stringent application of J-S27014-14 Id. In civil cases, the Rule requires: (1) the trial court must issue a Rule 1925(b) order directing an appellant to file a response within twenty-one days of that order; (2) the trial court must file the order with the prothonotary; (3) the prothonotary must enter the order on the docket; (4) the prothonotary must give written notice of the entry of the order to each party, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236; and (5) the prothonotary must record Rule 236 notice on the docket. See Forest Highlands , 879 A.2d 223, 227 (Pa.Super. 2005). Instantly, Appellant filed her notice of appeal on September 18, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court entered an order, with Rule 236 notice, directing Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one days of entry of the order. e on or before October 16, 2013. Appellant did not comply. The trial court issued its opinion on November 7, 2013, concluding Appellant had waived her issues for failure to file a court-ordered ure was would not file a Statement of Matters Complained of because the See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 7, 2013, at 2). Given that the trial court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement and strictly followed the proper filing and notice procedures, and -2- J-S27014-14 Appellant waived her issues.1 Accordingly, we affirm. See generally In re K.L.S., 594 Pa. 194, 197 n.3, 934 A.2d 1244, 1246 n.3 (2007) (stating where issues are waived on appeal, we should affirm rather than quash appeal). Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/28/2014 ____________________________________________ 1 In her brief on appeal, Appellant contends she mailed her Superior Court docketing statement to the trial court judge in lieu of filing a Rule 1925(b) statement in the trial court and concurrently serving the trial judge. Appellant attaches a United States Postal Service Form 3817, Certificate of Mailing postmarked October 23, 2013, which is twenty-eight days after the trial court directed the filing of the Rule 1925(b) statement. Appellant concludes her issues are not waived. Appellant provides no legal support for the proposition that a docketing statement satisfies the requisites of Rule 1925(b). Moreover, there is no indication Appellant filed the docketing statement in the trial court. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
