J-A16035-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ESTATE OF SOPHIA M. KRASINSKI A/K/A SOPHIA KRASINSKI A/K/A SOPHIA KRASINSKY LATE OF MORRISDALE (COOPER TOWNSHIP), CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED NOVEMBER 4, 2006, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

APPEAL OF: ESTATE OF SOPHIA M. KRASINSKI AND ITS EXECUTOR, EDWARD KRASINSKI

No. 1265 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Order July 16, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County Orphans' Court at No(s): 1707-0003

IN RE: ESTATE OF SOPHIA M. KRASINSKI, A/K/A SOPHIA KRASINSKI A/K/A SOFIA KRASINSKY, LATE OF MORRISDALE, (COOPER TOWNSHIP) CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED ON 11/04/06, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

APPEAL OF: PATRICIA KRASINSKIDUNZIK No. 1289 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Order July 16, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County Orphans' Court at No(s): 1707-0003J-A16035-16

- 2 -

BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER, * JJ. CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED: October 5, 2016 I concur in the Majority’s disposition of the Esta te’s appeal. However, because Pennsylvania case law instructs that the Ap ril 30, 2013 order confirming the private sale of Sophia’s real estate was interlocutory, I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s conclusion that Patricia’s issues regarding the private sale are waived. I also disa gree that Patricia is responsible for the tax implications of the private sale. Initially, I note that Sophia did not specifically devise her real estate to her children. Instead, she provided that the resid ue of the estate was to be divided equally among her four children. Last Will and Testament, 8/18/99, at Item II. Also, Sophia did not authorize her exe cutor to sell her real property. This Court has held, “In a decedent’s estate, the confirmation of the final account of the personal representative repres ents the final order, subject to exceptions being filed and disposed of b y the court.” In re Estate of Habazin , 679 A.2d 1293, 1295 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citation omitted); In re Estate of Quinn , 804 A.2d 541, 543 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“[T]he confirmation of the final account of the pe rsonal representative

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Cou rt.J-A16035-16

- 3 -

represents the final order.”). Here, the April 30, 2013 order, confirming the private sale of real property of the decedent’s est ate, is facially interlocutory because it does not generate an appeal from the con firmation of the executor’s final account. Moreover, and contrary to the Majority’s position, the April 30, 2013 order was not appealable under subsection (a)(6)—or any subsection—of amended Pa.R.A.P. 342. 1 “Legal title to all real estate of a decedent sha ll pass at his death to his heirs or devisees, subject, however , to all the powers granted to the personal representative by th is code and lawfully by the will and to all orders of the court.” 20 Pa.C. S.A. § 301 (emphasis supplied). Here, until legal title passed to the h eirs pursuant to the April 30, 2013 order, the estate owned the properties; theref ore, subsection (a)(6) does not apply. Accord In re Estate of Ash , 73 A.3d 1287, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that an order directing the s ale of real estate not specifically devised did not determine an interest in property because “the estate obviously own[ed]” the property in question) . The purpose of the April 30, 2013 order was not to resolve some disput e about who had or has an interest in the properties; the estate owned the properties. Instead, the

____________________________________________ 1 Under Stricker , infra , the question of appealability was vested strictly in the orphans’ court’s discretion. In re Estate of Cherry , 111 A.3d 1204, 1209 (Pa. Super. 2015). Following Stricker , Pa.R.A.P. 342 was amended, effective February 12, 2012, to list a number of or phans’ court orders appealable as of right. Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(1-8).J-A16035-16

- 4 -

April 30, 2013 order was about the propriety of the executor’s plan to sell the properties through a private sale, the goal bei ng to distribute the estate assets in accordance with the will, i.e. , to Sophia’s children. In other words, the purpose of the order was to achieve the distrib ution of the estate, not to determine an interest in real property. Nor was the April 30, 2013 order appealable as a co llateral order under

Pa.R.A.P. 313. See In re Estate of Stricker , 977 A.2d 1115, 1118 (Pa. 2009) (holding that an orphans’ court order directi ng the sale of real estate in the process of the administration of an estate i s not immediately appealable under Rule 313 as a collateral order); Ash , 73 A.3d at 1289 (concluding that an order authorizing the sale of r eal property of the decedent’s estate was not a collateral order under Rule 313). Here, the real estate at issue is central to the estate. “Consequ ently, its eventual disposition will serve directly the final account a nd distribution of the estate. Accordingly, it is central to the main cause of act ion and it does not qualify as a collateral order subject to immediate appeal.” In re Estate of Cherry , 111 A.3d 1204, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal quo tation marks omitted). Based on the foregoing, I disagree with the Majorit y’s conclusions that the April 30, 2013 order was final, that Patricia s hould have filed an appeal from the April 30, 2013 order and that, because she did not appeal that order, her issues regarding the private sale are wa ived. Therefore, I would address those issues on the merits.J-A16035-16

- 5 -

I also disagree with the Majority’s conclusion that Patricia was responsible for the tax implications of the private sale. The decedent expressly directed, “[A]ll taxes that may be assess ed in consequence of my death, of whatever nature and by whatever jurisdict ion imposed, shall be paid from my residuary estate as a part of the expe nse of the administration of my estate.” Last Will and Testament, 8/18/99, a t Item III. Therefore, the Estate was responsible for the tax implications of the private sale.