Scandale, A. v. Scandale, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: 647 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: King

Opinion

J-A04026-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

AMY SCANDALE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : JOHN SCANDALE : No. 647 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered September 25, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2022-DR-628, PACSES 187301800

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and LANE, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KING, J.: FILED: JANUARY 29, 2026

Appellant, Amy Scandale (“Wife”), appeals from the order entered in the

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Section,

which denied Wife’s exceptions and confirmed the support master’s amended

recommendation in this equitable distribution matter. We dismiss the appeal.

Briefly, the relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are as

follows. During the parties’ marriage they used cash to purchase a three-acre

property, which included the marital residence. Later, Appellee, John

Scandale (“Husband”), constructed a barn on the property, which housed his

custom-made firearms business. To fund this construction, the parties

mortgaged the property and obtained a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”).

Following their February 22, 2022 separation and a subsequent divorce

complaint filed by Wife, the parties have been litigating their support J-A04026-26

obligations and, specifically, who is responsible for the payment of the

mortgage and HELOC.

On September 24, 2024, the court denied Wife’s exceptions to and

confirmed the support master’s amended recommendation, which provided,

inter alia, that Wife be responsible for the second mortgage and HELOC. On

October 16, 2024, Wife timely filed a notice of appeal. On October 21, 2024,

the court ordered Wife to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors

complained of on appeal. On November 8, 2024, Wife filed her statement.

Before addressing the merits of Wife’s issues, we must determine

whether those issues are properly before us. The trial court and Husband

assert that Wife’s “concise” statement of errors complained of on appeal is

anything but concise, as it is six pages in length and raises 24 issues. The

trial court suggests that this Court deem Wife’s issues waived for non-

compliance with Rule 1925(b).

“A concise statement of errors complained of on appeal must be specific

enough for the trial court to identify and address the issues the appellant

wishes to raise on appeal” or the issues will be considered waived. S.S. v.

T.J., 212 A.3d 1026, 1030-32 (Pa.Super. 2019). See also Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(ii) (explaining that Rule 1925(b) statement “shall concisely

identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with

sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge”); Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating “[i]ssues not included in the Statement and/or not

raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived”).

-2- J-A04026-26

This Court has explained that “a Concise Statement which is too vague

to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional

equivalent to no Concise Statement at all.” S.S., supra at 1031 (quoting

Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686-687 (Pa.Super. 2001)).

This Court has interpreted “vagueness” as including “verbose and lengthy”

statements such that the trial court cannot readily identify the issues raised.

See id. at 1032. In sum, the purpose of the statement of errors complained

of on appeal is to “allow the trial court to easily discern the issues an appellant

intends to pursue on appeal and to allow the court to file an intelligent

response to those issues in an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).” Id.

Where the appellant fails to comply with this requirement, the issues are

waived. Id.

Here, we agree with the trial court that Wife’s Rule 1925(b) statement,

which spanned six pages and included 24 issues, was so verbose and lengthy

that the trial court could not readily identify the issues raised. (See Wife’s

Rule 1925(b) Statement, filed 11/8/24; R.R. at 18a-23a). In fact, the trial

court declined to address the merits of any of Wife’s claims raised on appeal

on this basis. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed 8/27/25, at 14a-17a). Therefore,

we deem Wife’s issues waived for purposes of appeal. See S.S., supra.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed. Case is stricken from oral argument list.

-3- J-A04026-26

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 01/29/2026

-4-