City of Philadelphia and the SD of Philadelphia v. J. Coppedge

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 7, 2025
Docket167 C.D. 2023
StatusUnpublished

This text of City of Philadelphia and the SD of Philadelphia v. J. Coppedge (City of Philadelphia and the SD of Philadelphia v. J. Coppedge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Philadelphia and the SD of Philadelphia v. J. Coppedge, (Pa. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

City of Philadelphia and the : School District of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 167 C.D. 2023 : James Coppedge, : Appellant : Submitted: June 3, 2025

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOLF FILED: July 7, 2025

James Coppedge (Coppedge), an unrepresented litigant, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) entered January 24, 2023, which granted the City of Philadelphia’s (City) Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and entered judgment in favor of the City and against Coppedge in the amount of $99,940.18 for unpaid real estate taxes and municipal fees for numerous properties he owns in Philadelphia.1 Upon review, we find that Coppedge has waived all issues on appeal as a result of his failure to file a Statement of Errors

1 We note that Coppedge attached to his Notice of Appeal an order dated January 30, 2023, that denied Coppedge’s Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s January 24, 2023 merits order. However, “Pennsylvania case law is absolutely clear that the refusal of a trial court to reconsider ... a final decree is not reviewable on appeal.” Thorn v. Newman, 538 A.2d 105, 108 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (citations omitted). Because Coppedge’s appeal is timely from the order entered January 24, 2023, we treat his appeal as filed from that order. Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Therefore, we affirm the trial court. Our disposition abrogates the need for a lengthy recitation of the facts of this case. This matter arises from a civil action brought by the City against Coppedge. On January 12, 2023, the trial court entered an order denying Coppedge’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Original Record (O.R.) at 7.2 On January 24, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting the City’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. On January 25, 2023, Coppedge filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Id. On January 30, 2023, the trial court entered an order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Id. Coppedge filed a notice of appeal on February 16, 2023. Id. On February 17, 2023, the trial court entered an order directing Coppedge to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (1925(b) Statement) within 21 days. Id. at 961. The order also notified Coppedge that any issues not raised by Coppedge in such statement would be waived on appeal. Id. On June 1, 2023, the trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), noting that Coppedge had failed to file a 1925(b) Statement. Trial Court’s 1925(a) Opinion at 1 (unpaginated). We need not summarize either party’s arguments to reach our disposition. This Court recently addressed the issue of waiver where an appellant failed to file a 1925(b) Statement:

In Commonwealth v. Lord, [] 719 A.2d 306 ([Pa.] 1998), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that if an appellant fails to file a timely Rule 1925(b) Statement as ordered by the trial court, all issues will be waived for purposes of appellate review. This Court has observed: The Supreme Court’s establishment of a bright-line rule in

2 Page number refers to electronic pagination, as the Original Record is unpaginated.

2 Lord makes waiver under Rule 1925[(b)] automatic with no room for interpretation. [] The complete failure by an appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement certainly renders his issues subject to the same fate.

Cummings v. Matiyasic, 334 A.3d 85, 89 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2025) (internal quotation omitted). Here, as in Matiyasic, Coppedge has failed to file a 1925(b) Statement, and therefore he has waived all issues on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

_____________________________________ MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

3 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

City of Philadelphia and the : School District of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 167 C.D. 2023 : James Coppedge, : Appellant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of July 2025, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County’s order entered January 24, 2023 is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Lord
719 A.2d 306 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)
Thorn v. Newman Et Ux.
538 A.2d 105 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
City of Philadelphia and the SD of Philadelphia v. J. Coppedge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-philadelphia-and-the-sd-of-philadelphia-v-j-coppedge-pacommwct-2025.