J-A05018-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
NELSON COLON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TAISHALY CARO : : Appellant : No. 1934 EDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division at No(s): 2024-FC-1210
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MAY 13, 2026
Appellant Taishaly Caro (Wife) appeals from the order denying her
petition to open or vacate the divorce decree terminating her marriage to
Appellee Nelson Colon (Husband). We affirm.
Briefly, on December 2, 2024, Husband filed a divorce complaint and,
after Wife failed to answer, on March 13, 2025 the trial court entered a divorce
decree. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/14/25, at 1. On April 4, 2025, Wife filed a petition
to open or vacate the decree, alleging that her counsel had “inadvertently
failed to file a response” and seeking equitable distribution. Id. at 1-2. The
trial court denied the petition on May 22, 2025. See id. at 2.
Wife filed a timely notice of appeal. On June 24, 2025, the trial court
issued a Rule 1925(b) order that “directed Wife to file of record in the trial
court and serve on the trial judge a concise statement of the errors complained
of on appeal within 21 days.” Trial Ct. Order, 6/24/25. The Rule 1925(b) J-A05018-26
order also provided the address for service on the trial judge. See id. On
July 14, 2025, Wife electronically filed a Rule 1925(b) statement with Lehigh
County’s civil clerk of judicial records. Wife’s certificate of service indicated
that Husband’s counsel had been served by mail but did not indicate service
on the trial judge. See Wife’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/14/25. The trial
court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion wherein it noted that Wife had failed to
serve the trial judge with the Rule 1925(b) statement. See Trial Ct. Op.,
8/14/25, at 4.
On appeal, Wife raises the following claims:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying the petition to open or vacate the divorce decree under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332?
2. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(e) was inapplicable to [Wife’s] preserved right to equitable distribution?
3. Whether the trial court’s reliance on procedural finality conflicted with Pennsylvania’s policy favoring substantive adjudication on the merits?
4. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that [Wife] failed to serve her [Rule 1925(b) statement]?
Wife’s Brief at 7.
Before addressing Wife’s claims, we consider whether the claims are
waived by Wife’s failure to serve the trial judge with her Rule 1925(b)
statement. See Trial Ct. Op. at 4; see also Husband’s Brief at 10-12; Wife’s
Brief at 7, 23-26.
Rule 1925(b) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
-2- J-A05018-26
(1) Filing and Service. The appellant shall file of record the Statement and concurrently shall serve the judge. Filing of record shall be as provided in Pa.R.A.P. 121(a) . . . . Service on the judge shall be at the location specified in the order, and shall be either in person, by mail, or by any other means specified in the order.
* * *
(3) Contents of order. The judge’s order directing the filing and service of a Statement shall specify:
(i) the number of days after the date of entry of the judge’s order within which the appellant must file and serve the Statement;
(ii) that the Statement shall be filed of record;
(iii) that the Statement shall be served on the judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) and both the place the appellant can serve the Statement in person and the address to which the appellant can mail the Statement. In addition, the judge may provide an email, facsimile, or other alternative means for the appellant to serve the Statement on the judge; and
(iv) that any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1), (3).
An appellant waives all issues on appeal when she fails to comply with
the requirements of Rule 1925(b). See Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888
A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d
775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (holding that, where a trial court issues an order directing
the filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement, appellants must comply with that order
to preserve claims for appellate review and any issues not raised therein will
be deemed waived); Rahn v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 254 A.3d 738, 745
(Pa. Super. 2021) (same).
-3- J-A05018-26
Schofield explained that
the requirement of strict compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) guarantees a trial judge’s ability to focus on the issues raised by the appellant, and . . . allows for meaningful and effective appellate review. Moreover, a bright-line rule eliminates the potential for the inconsistent results that existed . . . when trial courts and appellate courts had discretion to address or to waive issues raised in non-compliant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statements. [N]on-compliance creates substantial problems on appeal, [such as] whether the trial court received the statement within the required time period.
Schofield, 888 A.2d at 774-75. Further, “the service requirements in Rule
1925(b) are not satisfied when the appellant simply mails his 1925(b) to the
presiding judge of the court or merely files the statement with the
prothonotary, . . . [as] it is not the trial court’s responsibility to manually
search the prothonotary’s files.” Rahn, 254 A.3d at 745 (citation omitted).
Here, Wife does not claim that she served her Rule 1925(b) statement
on the trial judge as directed in the Rule 1925(b) order. Instead, Wife claims
that she timely filed and served her 1925(b) statement “through the [county’s
electronic filing] portal and that all filings were made in good faith reliance on
the system’s automatic transmission process.” Wife’s Brief at 23 (citing N.T.,
5/21/25 at 3-4). However, Rule 1925(b) requires an appellant to serve a
copy of her Rule 1925(b) statement on the trial judge, in addition to filing the
1925(b) statement with the trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1); see also
Schofield, 888 A.2d at 774-75; Rahn, 254 A.3d at 745; Castillo, 888 A.2d
at 780. Here, Wife conflates filing with the trial court with service on the trial
judge, whereas Rule 1925 and the trial court’s order address filing and service
-4- J-A05018-26
as two distinct procedures. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3); Trial Ct. Order,
6/24/25; see also Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 1325 MDA 2022, 2023 WL
4761388, at *2 (Pa. Super. filed July 26, 2023) (unpublished mem.). 1
The record reflects that the trial court discovered Wife’s Rule 1925(b)
statement “by a search of the docket during preparation” of its opinion and,
in fact, addressed Wife’s claims in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Trial Ct. Op. at
4-7. Wife essentially asks this Court to conclude that, because the trial court
was able to track down her Rule 1925(b) statement and respond to her claims
on appeal, the service requirements of Rule 1925(b) were satisfied. See
Wife’s Brief at 26. However, the trial court was not required to search the
prothonotary’s files for Appellant’s statement; further, given the lack of
service on the trial judge, it is immaterial that the trial court in fact addressed
Appellant’s claims.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A05018-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
NELSON COLON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TAISHALY CARO : : Appellant : No. 1934 EDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division at No(s): 2024-FC-1210
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MAY 13, 2026
Appellant Taishaly Caro (Wife) appeals from the order denying her
petition to open or vacate the divorce decree terminating her marriage to
Appellee Nelson Colon (Husband). We affirm.
Briefly, on December 2, 2024, Husband filed a divorce complaint and,
after Wife failed to answer, on March 13, 2025 the trial court entered a divorce
decree. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/14/25, at 1. On April 4, 2025, Wife filed a petition
to open or vacate the decree, alleging that her counsel had “inadvertently
failed to file a response” and seeking equitable distribution. Id. at 1-2. The
trial court denied the petition on May 22, 2025. See id. at 2.
Wife filed a timely notice of appeal. On June 24, 2025, the trial court
issued a Rule 1925(b) order that “directed Wife to file of record in the trial
court and serve on the trial judge a concise statement of the errors complained
of on appeal within 21 days.” Trial Ct. Order, 6/24/25. The Rule 1925(b) J-A05018-26
order also provided the address for service on the trial judge. See id. On
July 14, 2025, Wife electronically filed a Rule 1925(b) statement with Lehigh
County’s civil clerk of judicial records. Wife’s certificate of service indicated
that Husband’s counsel had been served by mail but did not indicate service
on the trial judge. See Wife’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/14/25. The trial
court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion wherein it noted that Wife had failed to
serve the trial judge with the Rule 1925(b) statement. See Trial Ct. Op.,
8/14/25, at 4.
On appeal, Wife raises the following claims:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying the petition to open or vacate the divorce decree under 23 Pa.C.S. § 3332?
2. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that 23 Pa.C.S. § 3502(e) was inapplicable to [Wife’s] preserved right to equitable distribution?
3. Whether the trial court’s reliance on procedural finality conflicted with Pennsylvania’s policy favoring substantive adjudication on the merits?
4. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that [Wife] failed to serve her [Rule 1925(b) statement]?
Wife’s Brief at 7.
Before addressing Wife’s claims, we consider whether the claims are
waived by Wife’s failure to serve the trial judge with her Rule 1925(b)
statement. See Trial Ct. Op. at 4; see also Husband’s Brief at 10-12; Wife’s
Brief at 7, 23-26.
Rule 1925(b) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
-2- J-A05018-26
(1) Filing and Service. The appellant shall file of record the Statement and concurrently shall serve the judge. Filing of record shall be as provided in Pa.R.A.P. 121(a) . . . . Service on the judge shall be at the location specified in the order, and shall be either in person, by mail, or by any other means specified in the order.
* * *
(3) Contents of order. The judge’s order directing the filing and service of a Statement shall specify:
(i) the number of days after the date of entry of the judge’s order within which the appellant must file and serve the Statement;
(ii) that the Statement shall be filed of record;
(iii) that the Statement shall be served on the judge pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) and both the place the appellant can serve the Statement in person and the address to which the appellant can mail the Statement. In addition, the judge may provide an email, facsimile, or other alternative means for the appellant to serve the Statement on the judge; and
(iv) that any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1), (3).
An appellant waives all issues on appeal when she fails to comply with
the requirements of Rule 1925(b). See Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888
A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d
775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (holding that, where a trial court issues an order directing
the filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement, appellants must comply with that order
to preserve claims for appellate review and any issues not raised therein will
be deemed waived); Rahn v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 254 A.3d 738, 745
(Pa. Super. 2021) (same).
-3- J-A05018-26
Schofield explained that
the requirement of strict compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) guarantees a trial judge’s ability to focus on the issues raised by the appellant, and . . . allows for meaningful and effective appellate review. Moreover, a bright-line rule eliminates the potential for the inconsistent results that existed . . . when trial courts and appellate courts had discretion to address or to waive issues raised in non-compliant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statements. [N]on-compliance creates substantial problems on appeal, [such as] whether the trial court received the statement within the required time period.
Schofield, 888 A.2d at 774-75. Further, “the service requirements in Rule
1925(b) are not satisfied when the appellant simply mails his 1925(b) to the
presiding judge of the court or merely files the statement with the
prothonotary, . . . [as] it is not the trial court’s responsibility to manually
search the prothonotary’s files.” Rahn, 254 A.3d at 745 (citation omitted).
Here, Wife does not claim that she served her Rule 1925(b) statement
on the trial judge as directed in the Rule 1925(b) order. Instead, Wife claims
that she timely filed and served her 1925(b) statement “through the [county’s
electronic filing] portal and that all filings were made in good faith reliance on
the system’s automatic transmission process.” Wife’s Brief at 23 (citing N.T.,
5/21/25 at 3-4). However, Rule 1925(b) requires an appellant to serve a
copy of her Rule 1925(b) statement on the trial judge, in addition to filing the
1925(b) statement with the trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1); see also
Schofield, 888 A.2d at 774-75; Rahn, 254 A.3d at 745; Castillo, 888 A.2d
at 780. Here, Wife conflates filing with the trial court with service on the trial
judge, whereas Rule 1925 and the trial court’s order address filing and service
-4- J-A05018-26
as two distinct procedures. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3); Trial Ct. Order,
6/24/25; see also Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 1325 MDA 2022, 2023 WL
4761388, at *2 (Pa. Super. filed July 26, 2023) (unpublished mem.). 1
The record reflects that the trial court discovered Wife’s Rule 1925(b)
statement “by a search of the docket during preparation” of its opinion and,
in fact, addressed Wife’s claims in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Trial Ct. Op. at
4-7. Wife essentially asks this Court to conclude that, because the trial court
was able to track down her Rule 1925(b) statement and respond to her claims
on appeal, the service requirements of Rule 1925(b) were satisfied. See
Wife’s Brief at 26. However, the trial court was not required to search the
prothonotary’s files for Appellant’s statement; further, given the lack of
service on the trial judge, it is immaterial that the trial court in fact addressed
Appellant’s claims. See Rahn, 254 A.3d at 745; Schofield, 888 A.2d at 774-
75 (holding that Rule 1925(b)’s “automatic waiver” applied regardless of
whether the trial court addressed the merits of the appellant’s claims in its
opinion).
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to conclude that Wife
has waived her claims on appeal, as electronic service on the trial court did
not effectuate service on the trial judge and, therefore, Wife failed to timely
serve the trial judge as clearly directed in the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order.
____________________________________________
1 We may cite to unpublished memorandum decisions of the Superior Court
filed after May 1, 2019, for their persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).
-5- J-A05018-26
See Schofield, 888 A.2d at 774-75; see also Rahn, 254 A.3d at 745;
Castillo, 888 A.2d at 780; Hamilton, 2023 WL 4761388, at *2; Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(3)(iii), (4)(vii).
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Date: 5/13/2026
-6-