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 TH OMPSON
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 th e 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 incapac ity 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 an d 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 tha t 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 an y 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 o n 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. 19 25(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 Co urt 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 cogniz ant 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