J-A10019-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: JAMES W. ROBINSON, AN 

ADJUDICATED INCAPACITATED PERSON, 

NOW DECEASED

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: DOREEN M. GRAZIANO

No. 1302 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County

Orphans' Court at No(s): 35-2013-4

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED MAY 04, 2015

Appellant, Doreen M. Graziano, appeals pro se from the July 2, 2014 

order denying her petition to appeal nunc pro tunc from the orphans’ court’s 

February 6, 2013 order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction. 

After careful review, we affirm.

The orphans’ court summarized the relevant factual and procedural 

history of this case as follows.

James W. Robinson, now deceased, was adjudicated 

an incapacitated person by [the orphans’ c]ourt on 

February [6], 2013 following a hearing on a 

[g]uardianship [p]etition which was filed by St. 

Mary’s Villa, a nursing facility where Mr. Robinson 

was residing. Along with the granting the 

[g]uardianship [p]etition, [the orphans’ c]ourt also 

denied a [m]otion for [p]reliminary [i]njunction 

which was filed by [Appellant on January 29, 2013]. 
J-A10019-15

- 2 -

The [p]reliminary [i]njunction [m]otion was centered 

on the circumstance that [Appellant] had entered 

into a fee agreement/contract for services with 

Susan Rooney and John Justice, adult children of 

James W. Robinson. Notwithstanding the dictates of 

the contract concerning the work to be performed at 

a certain cost, [Appellant] allege[d] that Ms. Rooney 

and Mr. Justice accepted her services but then 

refused to pay for those services, despite never 

having expressed any concern or dissatisfaction 

relative to the work performed by her. In the 

[p]reliminary [i]njunction [m]otion, [Appellant] 

sought to enjoin the payment of legal fees of Mr. 

Robinson’s counsel for the guardianship proceeding 

as well as counsel for [p]etitioner St. Mary’s Villa 

“until settlement of the claim against Defendant and 

the Estate of James W. Robinson, filed to Docket No. 

12 CV 6016”, which was a lawsuit she had instituted 

the previous year for payment for her services.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/22/14, at 1-2. On February 6, 2013, the 

orphans’ court entered an order denying Appellant’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration/appeal nunc pro tunc

on March 13, 2013. On April 5, 2013, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from 

the February 6, 2013 order, which was docketed in this Court at 620 MDA 

2013. On April 18, 2013, the orphans’ court dismissed Appellant’s motion 

for reconsideration for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a notice of appeal 

from that order on April 23, 2013, which was docketed in this Court at 753 

MDA 2013. On June 3, 2013, this Court entered an order sua sponte, 

quashing Appellant’s appeal at 620 MDA 2013 as untimely filed. Superior 

Court Order, 620 MDA 2013, 6/3/13, at 1. Appellant did not file a petition 

for allowance of appeal in our Supreme Court. On June 4, 2013, this Court 
J-A10019-15

- 3 -

entered an order quashing Appellant’s appeal at 753 MDA 2013 as taken 

from an unappealable order, “without prejudice to be refiled after the 

[orphans’] court rule[d] on the merits of [A]ppellant’s petition to appeal 

nunc pro tunc.” Superior Court Order, 753 MDA 2013, 6/4/13, at 1. Again, 

Appellant did not file a petition for allowance of appeal with our Supreme 

Court.

The record, pertaining to the issues in this appeal, remained dormant 

until April 22, 2014, when Appellant filed a new petition for appeal nunc pro 

tunc. The orphans’ court conducted a hearing on June 19, 2014, at which 

Appellant subpeonaed the current register of wills of Lackawanna County to 

testify. On July 2, 2014, the orphans’ court entered an order denying and 

dismissing Appellant’s petition for permission to appeal nunc pro tunc. On 

July 29, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.1

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for our review.

1. Did the [orphans’] court properly apply the 

mandates of 20 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 5501 et seq. and 

Pa.O.C.R. 14.2 to the [p]etition for 

[a]ppointment of a [p]lenary/[p]ermanent 

[g]uardian of the [p]erson and [e]state of 

James W. Robinson, an alleged incapacitated 

person?

____________________________________________

1 The orphans’ court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 1925(b). The orphans’ court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on 

October 22, 2014.
J-A10019-15

- 4 -

2. Did the [orphans’] court properly apply the law 

in denying and dismissing Appellant’s [m]otion 

for [p]reliminary [i]njunction?

3. Did the [orphans’] court properly consider all 

relevant factors in determining that Appellant 

has an adequate remeday [sic] at law for 

monetary damages?

Appellant’s Brief at 8.

At the outset, we note that, although Appellant appeals from the 

orphans’ court’s July 2, 2014 order, all of Appellant’s issues in her brief 

pertain to the merits of the orphans’ court’s February 6, 2013 order, denying 

her petition for a preliminary injunction. As noted above, this Court quashed 

Appellant’s first appeal from the orphans’ court’s February 6, 2013 order as 

untimely filed. Superior Court Order, 620 MDA 2013, 6/3/13, at 1. The 

current order on appeal from July 2, 2014, denied Appellant’s motion for 

appeal nunc pro tunc. We review an order denying a petition for permission 

to appeal nunc pro tunc for an abuse of discretion. Vietri ex rel. Vietri v. 

Del. Valley High Sch., 63 A.3d 1281, 1284 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation 

omitted).

Allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc lies at 

the sound discretion of the Trial Judge. More 

is required before such an appeal will be 

permitted than the mere hardship imposed 

upon the appellant if the request is denied. As 

a general matter, a Trial Court may grant an 

appeal nunc pro tunc when a delay in filing [an 

appeal] is caused by extraordinary 

circumstances involving fraud or some 

breakdown in the court's operation through a 

default of its officers. Where an appeal is not 
J-A10019-15

- 5 -

timely because of non-negligent 

circumstances, either as they relate to 

appellant or his counsel, and the appeal is filed 

within a short time after the appellant or his 

counsel learns of and has an opportunity to 

address the untimeliness, and the time period 

which elapses is of very short duration, and 

appellee is not prejudiced by the delay, the 

court may allow an appeal nunc pro tunc.

McKeown v. Bailey, 731 A.2d 628, 630 (Pa. Super. 

1999) (citations omitted). Our Supreme Court has 

made it clear that the circumstances occasioning the 

failure to file an appeal must not stem from counsel's 

negligence or from a failure to anticipate foreseeable 

circumstances. Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 

2001).

In re Adoption of W.R., 823 A.2d 1013, 1015-1016 (Pa. Super. 2003)

(parallel citation omitted).

In this case, the orphans’ court denied Appellant’s petition for 

permission to appeal nunc pro tunc. Appellant’s notice of appeal states that 

she is appealing the orphans’ court’s July 2, 2014 order denying her petition 

for permission to appeal nunc pro tunc. Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 

7/29/14, at 1. However, Appellant’s brief offers no argument as to how the 

orphans’ court abused its discretion in denying her petition for permission to 

appeal nunc pro tunc. Having failed to raise a question on appeal relative to 

the denial of her motion to appeal nunc pro tunc and offered no argument in 

her appellate brief, the issue has been waived. See In re Estate of 

Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating, “[f]ailure to cite 

relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal[]”) 
J-A10019-15

- 6 -

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). Accordingly, this 

Court cannot review any of the issues raised in Appellant’s brief regarding 

the orphans’ court’s February 6, 2013 order.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction 

to address the merits of any of the issues raised in Appellant’s brief, 

regarding the orphans’ court’s February 6, 2013 order. We further conclude 

Appellant has waived any issue in connection with the July 2, 2014 orphans’ 

court order. Accordingly, the orphans’ court’s July 2, 2014 order denying 

Appellant permission to appeal said February 6, 2013 order nunc pro tunc is 

affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/4/2015