J-A28031-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ESTATE OF ASHLYN V. WILLIAMS,

 DECEASED

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: ROBERT HAWKINS AND

 ASHLYN V. SAUNDERS-HAWKINS, III

No. 165 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Order entered December 11, 2012,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Orphans’

Court, at No(s): 372 AP of 2010

BEFORE: GANTMAN, WECHT, and JENKINS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2014

Appellants Robert Hawkins (“Robert”) and Ashlyn V. SaundersHawkins, III (“Ashlyn”) (collectively “Appellants”) appeal pro se from the 

December 11, 2012 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia 

County, Orphans’ Court Division, denying their request for damages as 

averred in their Emergency Motion for Extraordinary Relief. After careful 

review, we affirm.

This matter is the continuation of a protracted underlying dispute 

between Roxanne Lloyd (“Roxanne”) and Appellants. Ashlyn is Roxanne’s 

sister, and Robert is Ashlyn’s husband and Roxanne’s brother-in-law. While 

the underlying matter involves multiple claims of wrongdoing in the probate 

of Ashlyn and Roxanne’s mother’s will, the instant appeal involves only the 

value of personal property Ashlyn claims she left in real property granted to 

Roxanne by their mother’s will. 
J-A28031-14

- 2 -

We summarize the factual and procedural histories of the matter as 

follows. Ashlyn Williams (“Decedent”), Roxanne’s and Ashlyn’s mother, 

passed away on May 30, 2009. Decedent’s will, executed on May 12, 2009, 

left her entire estate to Roxanne and appointed Roxanne as executrix. 

When Decedent died, the Estate consisted of no personal property but three 

pieces of real property in West Philadelphia, two of which were contiguous.1 

Ashlyn resided in the contiguous properties.2

In February 2010, Roxanne offered the May 12, 2009 will for probate 

with the Philadelphia County Register of Wills. On February 25, 2010, the 

Register of Wills admitted the will to probate and granted Roxanne letters 

testamentary. Ashlyn unsuccessfully challenged the probate of the will.3

 

1 1217 Greylock Street, 600 South 51st Street, and 602 South 51st Street.

2 600-602 South 51st Street.

3 Ashlyn filed an appeal from the decree of probate and a “Petition To

Revoke The Grant Of Letters Of Administration, And For An Accounting Of All 

Activity Related To The Estate” (“Petition to Revoke”) on March 8, 2010. 

The Petition to Revoke alleged Decedent lacked testamentary capacity to 

execute the will, and that the will was procured through undue influence 

exerted by Roxanne. The trial court conducted a hearing on these claims on 

April 28, 2011, and denied Ashlyn’s claims by decree filed on June 7, 2011. 

After filing exceptions that the lower court denied, Ashlyn appealed to this 

Court, which dismissed the appeal based on Ashlyn’s complete failure to 

comply with the briefing/reproduced record requirements outlined in the 

Rules. See Estate of Ashlyn V. Williams, Deceased, Appeal of: Ashlyn 

V. Saunders-Hawkins, III, 2953 EDA 2011 (unpublished memorandum). 

The instant case is not, however, an appeal of the lower court’s rulings 

regarding the validity of the will or the distributions thereunder. Instead, it 

is an appeal from a collateral ruling concerning personal property in one of 

the properties acquired by Roxanne under the terms of the will, as discussed 

infra.
J-A28031-14

- 3 -

Meanwhile, the estate deeded the real property to Roxanne, and 

Roxanne began eviction proceedings against Ashlyn and the other occupants 

of the properties.4 Following a hearing on May 12, 2010, the Philadelphia 

Municipal Court entered a judgment against Ashlyn and all occupants of 600-

602 South 51st Street. Ashlyn was evicted from the premises on August 5, 

2010.

Following the eviction, Ashlyn filed a Petition to Restore Possession, 

which the Municipal Court denied following a hearing on August 13, 2010.5 

The Municipal Court ordered Ashlyn to remove her property from the 

premises on August 14th and 15th, 2010, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m.

On May 26, 2011, Ashlyn filed a motion entitled “Emergency Motion 

For Extraordinary Relief” (“Emergency Motion”) alleging that Roxanne had 

violated the court’s August 13, 2010 order that allowed Ashlyn to enter and 

take her personal possessions from 600-602 South 51st Streets following her 

eviction. The Emergency Motion alleged Roxanne had stolen all of Ashlyn’s 

 

4 Ashlyn filed a pro se petition for an injunction to prevent Roxanne from 

taking any action with regard to the premises, including selling, collecting 

rents, and/or evicting tenants. After a hearing, the Orphans’ Court denied 

Ashlyn’s request for an injunction on April 15, 2010.

5 After the hearing on the Petition to Restore Possession, also on August 13, 

2010, Roxanne obtained a temporary Protection From Abuse order against 

Ashlyn in the Family Court Division of the Philadelphia County Court of 

Common Pleas.
J-A28031-14

- 4 -

personal property contained within the property, including appliances, 

jewelry, heirlooms, furniture, clothing, and tools and equipment used in the 

conduct of her business. Roxanne did not file an answer to the Emergency 

Motion, and the trial court entered judgment against Roxanne on May 26, 

2011. 

On July 27, 2012, the Orphans’ Court held a damages hearing on the 

judgment entered against Roxanne. At that hearing, Ashlyn claimed 

Roxanne stole appliances, machines, and tools that Ashlyn and Robert 

intended to use for a business. Ashlyn estimated the value of these missing 

items/tools/etc. at somewhere between $75,000 and $500,000 but provided 

no documentation, receipts, or other proofs to substantiate her estimate.

The court denied Ashlyn any damages by order dated December 11, 

2012. The court later explained:

Upon consideration of the Record made at the Hearing held on 

June 27, 2012, I found that Ashlyn was not a credible or 

convincing witness; that I could not make an award of damages, 

for loss of personal property, without engaging in sheer 

speculation, guesswork, and conjecture; and, that, under the 

circumstances in this case, the conduct of Roxanne was not 

outrageous.

1925(a) Opinion, p. 20. Appellants timely appealed.

Appellants raise the following claim for review:

Did not the lower court err in refusing to hear any evidence of 

testimony regarding the state of New Jersey, considering the fact 

that the will was produced, procured, and initially probated in 
J-A28031-14

- 5 -

the State of New Jersey, and it was unequivacally [sic] proven 

that Mrs. Lloyd perjured herself in her initial filing there?

Appellants’ Brief, p. 2 (all caps removed, page number supplied). In 

essence, Appellants present a question regarding the trial court’s 

determination as to the admission of certain evidence. They claim the court 

erred by failing to admit evidence regarding their allegations of Roxanne’s 

wrongful effort to probate Decedent’s will in New Jersey prior to probating it 

in Pennsylvania. They are incorrect.

“[T]he admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial 

court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly 

abused its discretion.” Smith v. Morrison, 47 A.3d 131, 137 

(Pa.Super.2012).

Admissibility depends on relevance and probative value. 

Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material 

fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less 

probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption 

regarding a material fact. Evidence, even if relevant, may be 

excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the potential 

prejudice.

Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Minerd, 752 A.2d 225, 230 (Pa.2000) 

(“Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the 

case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a 

reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a material 

fact.”).
J-A28031-14

- 6 -

Here, the sole issue at the damages hearing was to determine the 

value of the property Appellants claimed Roxanne stole. Any evidence 

regarding Roxanne’s alleged misdeeds attempting to probate the will in New 

Jersey was completely irrelevant to the single damages issue before the 

court and was properly precluded as irrelevant. See Smith, supra.

In fact, Appellants put forth no evidence whatsoever to support their 

claims that Roxanne retained property valued at between $75,000 and 

$500,000. As the trial court explained:

Ashlyn and Robert[] produced no receipts or appraisal[s] 

to support the values which they placed on their lost personal 

property. They made no insurance claims for their losses. I 

could only engage in sheer speculation, guesswork and 

conjecture to make an award of damages for the loss of tools 

and equipment which have been used in a business conducted 

by disabled persons who receive Social Security Disability 

Benefits but did not file income tax returns to report their 

receipts from the business. I could only engage in sheer 

speculation, guesswork and conjecture to make an award of 

damages for the loss of heirlooms, furniture, jewelry, appliances, 

clothing, shoes and other property lost by Ashlyn and Robert. I 

was not convinced by Ashlyn’s testimony[6] as to [the] value [of

 

6 The trial court assessed Ashlyn’s testimony thusly:

Ashlyn was highly agitated, screaming, ranting and raving, in a 

manner bordering on hysteria, during much of her time on the 

witness stand at the [h]earing on June 27, 2012. As a finder of 

fact, I found Ashlyn was not a credible or convincing witness 

because her observations, recollections and testimony were 

clearly influenced by her palpable antipathy for Roxanne. Ashlyn 

sees Roxanne as a liar and a criminal who must be punished for 

victimizing Ashlyn. The testimony of Ashlyn’s [d]aughter, as 

(footnote continued on following page)
J-A28031-14

- 7 -

the property,] which was based on trips to Home Depot and a 

[j]ewelry [s]tore to gaze at the items on display. I could only 

engage in sheer speculation, guesswork and conjecture to make 

an award of [d]amages for the loss of the ashes of Robert’s 

mother.

Upon consideration of the [r]ecord made at the [h]earing 

held on June 27, 2012, I held that I could not make an award of 

damages, for loss of personal property, without engaging in 

sheer speculation, guesswork and conjecture.

1925(a) Opinion, pp. 22-23.

Simply put, Appellants failed to put forth any credible evidence to 

support their claims of loss at the damages hearing. Any testimony about 

alleged misdeeds in prior New Jersey probate proceedings would not have 

changed this fact. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

excluding this irrelevant evidence.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2014

 

well as Ashlyn’s own demeanor on the witness stand, convinced 

me that Ashlyn and Roxanne cannot be in the same room 

without some dispute erupting.

1925(a) Opinion, pp. 20-21.
J-A28031-14

- 8 -