Wells v. Cendant Mobility Financial Corp. - Superior Court - December 14, 2006
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a32035_06.pdf
Appellants' arguments were held to have been waived, because they filed an "indecipherably vague" statement under Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) concerning "matters complained of on appeal."
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/210/chapter19/s1925.html
The Rule 1925(b) statement is "a crucial component in the appellate process" and is "intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal." A statement that is "overly broad and vague" or "unfocused and indefinite" or "vague and abstract" forces the trial court to "guess what issues an appellant is appealing." Such an "endless assignment severely taxes the trial court and impedes meaningful appellate review.
Where the Rule 1925(b) statement is inadequate, the trial and appellate courts "may find waiver and disregard any argument" on a point, "even if the trial court guesses correctly and addresses the issue" in a thorough opinion. "[I]ssues not included in a Rule 1925(b) statement are deemed waived on appeal....A Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no Concise Statement at all."
In the instant case, appellants alleged unspecified "errors of law" which were "extremely vague, encompassing the entire proceedings without providing a hint as to when, where, or how the trial court committed its alleged legal errors."
