J-A17012-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

IN RE: GENEVIEVE BUSH

APPEAL OF: MARY BUSH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2657 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered September 20, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 1509-1720

BEFORE: KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED AUGUST 28, 2023

Mary Bush (Bush) appeals pro se from the September 20, 2022 order of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) dismissing as moot 

her motion for sanctions and objections to the final accounting of the Estate 

of Genevieve Bush (Genevieve). We quash the appeal.

Briefly, the instant docket concerns a guardianship that was granted 

over Genevieve, Bush’s mother, and has been the subject of substantial 

litigation by Bush since its initiation. The guardianship was opened in 2011 

and continued through Genevieve’s death in June of 2021. The guardians of 

Bush’s person and estate filed the required final accountings in early August 

of 2021. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(c)(2) (“Within 60 days of the death of the 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17012-23

- 2 -

incapacitated person . . . the guardian shall file a final report with the court.”). 

Bush did not file any objections and approximately three months later, on 

November 3, 2021, the trial court entered an order terminating the 

guardianship. Notwithstanding the termination, Bush filed objections to the 

final accountings on December 23, 2021.

As the trial court explains, at a hearing on September 19, 2022,

regarding Genevieve’s contested will, which was docketed separately, Bush 

brought to its attention that pleadings in the instant matter had never been 

addressed. Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/22, at 1 n.1. These pleadings were a

motion for sanctions filed on January 8, 2020, and Bush’s objection to the 

guardian’s final accounting filed on December 23, 2021. Upon review of the 

docket, the trial court discovered that the guardianship had been closed by 

final order and dismissed Bush’s two filings as moot. Bush timely appealed 

and she and the trial court complied with Pa. R.A.P. 1925.

In its opinion, the trial court explained that it lacked jurisdiction to 

consider the substance of the two pleadings because the guardianship had 

been terminated more than 30 days prior. Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/22, at 

1-2 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 and related cases). We agree. “Except as 

otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon notice to the parties 

may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry, 

notwithstanding the prior termination of any term of court, if no appeal from 

such order has been taken or allowed.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. Unless a trial 
J-A17012-23

- 3 -

court expressly grants a motion for reconsideration within the 30-day period, 

it loses jurisdiction to modify or rescind the final order. Mfrs. & Traders 

Trust Co. v. Greenville Gastroenterology, SC, 108 A.3d 913, 918 (Pa. 

Super. 2015).

Here, the trial court issued an order dismissing the two pleadings as 

moot but acknowledged in its opinion pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) that it 

lacked jurisdiction to take any action on a case that had been closed by final 

order nearly a year prior. “If a court issues an order after statutory time limits 

have passed, that order is a legal nullity.” Commonwealth v. Green, 265 

A.3d 798, 800 (Pa. Super. 2021), aff'd, 284 A.3d 451 (Pa. 2022). Moreover, 

“a legally-null order renders an appeal taken therefrom likewise legally null.” 

Id. Accordingly, we quash this appeal.1

Appeal quashed.

____________________________________________

1

If Bush believed it was improper for the trial court to decline to rule on her 

pleadings before terminating the guardianship, her remedy was to file a timely 

motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal. She failed to do so. Her 

objections to the final accounting were filed 50 days after the termination 

order was docketed and cannot reasonably be construed as a timely motion 

for reconsideration or notice of appeal. See Pa. R.A.P. 903(a) (requiring that 

a notice of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order 

from which the appeal is taken”).
J-A17012-23

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/28/2023