J-A04044-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ESTATE OF GENEVIEVE THOMPSON / AN 

INCAPACITATED PERSON

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: NANCY THOMPSON

No. 755 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Decree January 19, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Orphans’ Court at No.: 1858IC of 2006 Control No. 15532

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED MARCH 29, 2017

Appellant, Nancy Thompson, appeals pro se from the decree denying 

her exceptions to the court’s decision continuing guardianship and 

appointing Debra G. Speyer, Esquire (Speyer), as guardian of the estate of 

Appellant’s mother, Genevieve Thompson (Thompson). We affirm.

We take the following facts from our independent review of the record. 

On December 8, 2006, the Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging filed a 

petition for adjudication of incapacity and appointment of a plenary guardian 

of the person and estate of Thompson. On February 5, 2007, the trial court 

adjudicated Thompson a totally incapacitated person, and appointed Howard 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A04044-17

- 2 -

Soloman, Esquire, as plenary guardian of her estate. Soloman and Appellant 

were appointed plenary co-guardians of Thompson’s person. Speyer 

subsequently replaced Soloman as guardian of the estate and co-guardian of 

the person. 

On August 18, 2015, Appellant filed a petition for adjudication of 

capacity, alleging that Thompson was no longer totally incapacitated. The 

court held a hearing on October 14, 2015. On January 19, 2016, the court 

entered a decree denying Appellant’s petition, and appointing her as 

guardian of Thompson’s person and Speyer as guardian of the estate. 

Thereafter, the trial court denied Appellant’s exceptions, and Appellant 

timely appealed.

On March 28, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a 

statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one days, and 

cautioned her that any issue not raised in the statement would be deemed 

waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); (see also Order, 3/28/16). 

Appellant failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.1 Therefore, Appellant has 

waived her issues on appeal.

In Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998), the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, “from this date forward, in order to 

____________________________________________

1 The court filed an opinion on May 4, 2016, in which it explained that 

Appellant’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement rendered it unable to 

address any potential appellate issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a); (see also

Opinion, 5/04/16). 
J-A04044-17

- 3 -

preserve their claims for appellate review, Appellants must comply whenever 

the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on 

Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement 

will be deemed waived.” Lord, supra at 309; see also Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(vii). More recently, this Court stated that “failure to comply with 

the minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in automatic 

waiver of the issues raised.” Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque 

Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted). 

Indeed, “our Supreme Court does not countenance anything less than 

stringent application of waiver pursuant to Rule 1925(b)[.]” Id.

In this case, Appellant failed to file a statement of errors complained of 

on appeal pursuant to the trial court’s order. (See Order, 3/28/16). 

Therefore, Appellant has waived her issues, and this Court is precluded from 

reviewing their merits. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., supra at 

224. Thus, we affirm the decree of the trial court.2

Decree affirmed.

____________________________________________

2 We are cognizant that Appellant is proceeding pro se. It is well-settled, 

however, that, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials 

filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit 

upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the 

procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” 

Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034, 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015) 

(citation omitted).
J-A04044-17

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/29/2017