J-S38034-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ESTATE OF GERALDINE M. PRICE, 

DECEASED

APPEAL OF: DARLENE PRICE AND 

KIM PRICE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1501 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,

Orphans' Court at No(s): 2018-X4250

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED APRIL 5, 2023

Darlene Price and Kim Price (“Price Sisters”) appeal the order entered 

by the orphans’ court distributing the Estate of Geraldine M. Price equally,

one-third each, between the two Price Sisters and their brother, Alison Price

(“Mr. Price”), the three beneficiaries. Upon review, we vacate the order and

remand for modification of the order of distribution in accordance with this

memorandum.

The orphans’ court set forth the facts and relevant procedural history as

follows:

This long-standing estate fight began in November of 2018, two

months after Geraldine Price died, with a typical filing of a Petition

for Grant of Letters Administration by [Mr. Price] seeking to be

named as administrator of the estate of his widowed mother who

died intestate. The decedent's three children, [the Price Sisters

and Mr. Price], were all named as co-administrators and were

listed on the petition as Ms. Price's sole heirs.

***
J-S38034-22

- 2 -

On December 21, 2021, during a hearing before the Hon. Gail 

Weilheimer of this [c]ourt, the parties reached a settlement 

agreement which she placed on the record. The agreement 

related to, in relevant part, the sale of a property located at 1460 

Doris Road in Abington, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (the 

"Property"). [This agreement and the court’s] December 27, 2021 

Order resolved five different petitions then before [it], including 

[its] dismissal of the petition seeking to evict [Mr. Price] from the 

Property, and also permitting and requiring the sale of the 

Property to [Mr. Price’s] girlfriend within 60 days without further 

[c]ourt approval, after which it would go to public sale.

On February 21, 2022, [Mr. Price] requested a brief extension for

sale of the Property . . . [which] was granted by the [orphan’s

court] with sale to be completed no later than February 24, 2022. 

Sale of the Property took place on February 24, 2022 as ordered,

at which point the instant argument between the parties

escalated, as (despite the existence of their settlement

agreement) they were unable to reach consensus on how the

proceeds of the sale (the "Proceeds") should be distributed. On

the following day, [Mr. Price] filed his Petition to Open an Estate

Account and Stay Distribution of Estate Proceeds Pending Final

Accounting. [The Price Sisters] responded on March 1, 2022,

agreeing to the opening of an estate account but at the same time

seeking the removal of [Mr. Price] as Co-Administrator of Ms.

Price's estate as well as sanctions against Mr. Price for delay and

for causing [the Price Sisters] to incur additional legal fees.

The [orphans’ court] heard testimony from the parties on March

21, 2022, at the conclusion of which the parties were ordered to

immediately open an estate account for the deposit of the

[P]roceeds of the sale of the Property and to provide briefs to the

[c]ourt setting forth how they thought the $72,919.88 being

deposited in the account should be disbursed . . . . After careful

consideration of the submissions of each party as well as the

record, our May 5, 2022 order was issued, stating "we find that

the parties are so close in their proposed resolution of this matter

that an equitable solution which will avoid the need for further

litigation and additional counsel fees is appropriate" and ordering

the distribution of the $ 72,919.88 in the estate account one-third

each to [the Price Sisters] and [Mr. Price].

Trial Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 1-3.
J-S38034-22

- 3 -

The Price Sisters filed this timely appeal. The Price Sisters and the 

orphans’ court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.1

The Price Sisters raise the following issue for our review:

Whether the trial court erred when it failed to enforce the terms 

of the court ordered settlement agreement dated December 21, 

2021, among the co-administrators?

____________________________________________

1 The orphans’ court asserts that the Price Sisters’ appeal should be quashed 

or their failure to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

1925(b). The court maintains that none of the 14 issues raised therein 

ascribed any error to its order. Instead, “some of the listed items are 

statements of fact, others are questions, some are incomprehensible, others 

relate to matters not before the [court] at the time of the hearing.” Because 

it could not comprehend the specific issues to be raised on appeal and was 

precluded from analyzing them, the court asserts that the Price Sisters’ appeal 

should be quashed. Trial Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 8.

On appeal, the Price Sisters also raise the following issue in response: “Are

the [Price Sisters] entitled to file a vague and overly broad Statement of the

Issues to be Raised on Appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) because the orphans’

courts’ order’s reasoning was vague and not discernible from the record? Price

Sisters’ Brief at 4. Because they could not discern the court’s rationale for its

May 5, 2022, order, the Price Sisters claim they could not state their issues

with the requisite specificity. Therefore, their appeal should not be quashed. 

Price Sisters’ Brief at 14.

A Rule 1925(b) statement is an important component of the appellate process

because it allows the trial court to identify and focus on those issues the party

plans to raise on appeal. Riley v. Foley, 783 A.2d 807, 813 (Pa. Super.

2001). As such, the Rule 1925(b) statement must be sufficiently “concise”

and “coherent” so that the trial court can identify the issues to be raised on

appeal. “A concise statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify

the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent to no Concise

Statement at all.” Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686-87 (Pa.

Super. 2001).

Here, although poorly written, the Price Sisters’ Rule 1925(b) statement

encompasses the issue they challenge on appeal. Additionally, the issue is

relatively straightforward, and the orphans’ court was able to address it to

some degree in its 1925(a) opinion. We therefore decline to find waiver.
J-S38034-22

- 4 -

Price Sisters’ Brief at 4.

On appeal, the Price Sisters claim that the trial court failed to follow the 

settlement agreement entered among the three beneficiaries when it 

distributed the money in the Estate account. Specifically, they maintain that 

the agreement required Mr. Price to pay rent to the Estate for his use of the 

Property; this amount was then to be offset by certain payments Mr. Price 

made to maintain the Property. After that offset, the Price Sisters argue Mr. 

Price still owed the Estate $31,0128.94, but he never paid any of it to the 

Estate. The Price Sisters further maintain that Mr. Price is not entitled to share 

in the rent proceeds as he claims; “there is no clause in the agreement that 

states [Mr. Price] gets a part of the rent payment he owes.” Price Sisters’ 

Brief at 21. As such, they contend that the orphans’ court erred when it 

distributed 1/3 of the Proceeds from the sale of the Property to Mr. Price. 

Instead, according to the Price Sisters, the court should have distributed the 

estate funds equally between them, being $36,459.94. Price Sister’s Brief at 

19-21. 

“Our standard of review of an orphans’ court’s decision is deferential.” 

In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 54 A.3d 359, 362 (Pa. Super. 2012). When 

reviewing an orphans’ court decree, this Court must determine whether the 

record is free from legal error and whether the orphans’ court’s findings are 

supported by the record. Id. at 362–63. Because the orphans' court sits as 

the finder of fact, it determines the credibility of the witnesses and, on review, 

this Court will not reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of 
J-S38034-22

- 5 -

discretion. Id. at 363. However, this Court is not bound to give the same 

deference to the orphans' court conclusions of law. Id. (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Where the rules of law on which the orphans' court relied 

are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court's decree. 

Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, we point out that an 

abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment. However, if in reaching 

a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment 

exercised is shown by the record to be manifestly unreasonable or the product 

of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, discretion has been abused. Id.

(citation omitted).

In estate matters, family settlement agreements are favored because 

they are an attempt to avoid potentially divisive litigation. The existence of 

such agreement must be shown by clear and unambiguous evidence; the 

agreement must be binding on all parties. In re Estate of Brojack, 467 A.2d 

1175, 1179 (Pa. Super. 1983). Where a fair and valid agreement is present 

it will be upheld whenever possible; in the absence of fraud the agreement is 

binding even if based on an error of law. Id.

Here, there is no dispute as to whether there was an agreement or its 

terms. The agreement made between the Price Sisters and Mr. Price on 

December 22, 2021, was placed on the record in open court. All parties 

agreed to its terms knowingly and voluntarily when questioned by the court. 

Notably, despite the controversy that exists over this Estate, the parties’ 
J-S38034-22

- 6 -

agreement is relatively simple and straightforward. In relevant part, it 

provides: 

Now, as it relates to the Abington property located at 1460 Doris 

Road in Abington, Pennsylvania, Allison Price has been residing in 

the property since the owner Geraldine Price died in September of 

2018. There is an agreement between the parties that Allison 

Price is obligated to pay rent in the amount of $2,450 a month 

from September 2018 to the present. The amount of money that 

is owed for the 39 months from September of 2018 to the present 

is $95,550.

Mr. Price will continue to pay the monthly rent of $2,450 for the 

remainder of the time that he resides at this property, until such 

time as the property is purchased.

The parties recognize that Mr. Price has been paying the mortgage 

in the approximate amount of $3,250. But Mr. Price's mortgage 

payments, which until such time as it will be documented by his 

attorney Mr. Tall, will be reduced from the rent that he owes to 

the estate.

Mr. Price has also made payments to the Bankruptcy Court. The 

property was included in Allison Price's bankruptcy filing; and 

there have been Bankruptcy Court payments made at this point 

in the amount of $23,124.22, that there may be more owed; and 

that Mr. Price will also be credited the amount paid to Bankruptcy 

Court to preserve the property from the total amount of rent 

owed.

There will be an estate bank account established. And any 

balance owed from the total amount of rent owed by Mr. 

Price after deducting mortgage payments and payments to 

the Bankruptcy Court will be paid to the estate account.

If there is a credit owed to Mr. Price, he will be paid the credit 

from the estate after the sale of the Abington property. It may be 

that there is nothing owed after all the numbers are reconciled. 

That is regarding the rent of the Abington property.

N.T., 12/21/21, at 3-4 (emphasis added).
J-S38034-22

- 7 -

Additionally, the relevant numbers involved are undisputed. They are 

as follows:

Total amount of rent owed by Mr. Price: $ 100,450.00

Proceeds from sale of Property: $ 72,919.88

Payments made by Mr. Price: $ 69,421.062

Trial Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 5.

The parties, however, cannot agree how these numbers should be 

applied to the agreement and how any remaining proceeds in the Estate 

should be distributed. The Price Sisters claim that Mr. Price is not entitled to 

any portion of the rent because “there was nothing in the agreement that said 

he gets a part of the payment [rent] he owes.” Conversely, Mr. Price claims 

that he is entitled a credit of 1/3 of the rent he paid. The orphans’ court 

explained its understanding of the controversy:

what the parties could not agree upon was whether [Mr. Price] 

was due a credit of $ 33,483.33 against the full $ 100,450 for his 

one-third share he would receive as a beneficiary of the estate or 

how the remaining proceeds should be distributed. [Mr. Price’s] 

counsel simply added up all the credits due Mr. Price including the 

one-third fair rental value credit but stopped there. [The Price 

Sisters’] counsel totaled the credits for the mortgage and 

Bankruptcy Court payments and subtracted them from the rent 

owed, coming up with a lump sum owed by [Mr. Price] to the 

estate [$29,510.94]. He did not take the next step of giving [Mr. 

____________________________________________

2 According to the agreement, Mr. Price was to provide total mortgage 

payments he made, being $46,296.84. That amount plus the amount he paid 

to the bankruptcy court, $23,124.22, total $69,421.06. This total amount of 

payments differs slightly from that contained in Mr. Price’s brief by $1,500. 

Because the orphans’ court adopted individual numbers, we apply them to our 

calculation herein.
J-S38034-22

- 8 -

Price] a credit for one-third of the rent paid to the estate. Nor did 

either side agree that each of the siblings [was] entitled to one 

third of any proceeds remaining in the estate account following 

completion of these calculations.

Id. It appears that, in deciding these issues for the parties, the orphans’ court 

offset the 1/3 credit claimed by Mr. Price against the remaining rent owed to 

the Estate claimed by the Price Sisters’. While this was not an exact offset, 

the court concluded the parties were “close enough.” It then equitably 

distributed the remaining amount from the sale of the Property evenly 

between the siblings. Id. at 10.

Based upon our review, we disagree with the parties’ claims regarding 

the treatment of the rent. Additionally, we find that the orphans’ court failed 

to adhere to the terms of the parties’ agreement and erred when it calculated 

the numbers.

Importantly, according to the agreement, Mr. Price was obligated to pay 

rent to the estate. In relevant part, the agreement provided:

And any balance owed from the total amount of rent owed by Mr. 

Price after deducting mortgage payments and payments to the 

Bankruptcy Court will be paid to the estate account.

N.T., 12/21/21, at 3-4. This is confirmed further by the court’s colloquy of 

one of the parties on December 21, 2021:

THE COURT: Was he able to answer any questions that you have? 

Let me ask it this way. Do you have any outstanding questions at 

this time that were not answered by your attorney or the Court 

during the negotiations?

MS. DARLENE PRICE: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay, what is that?
J-S38034-22

- 9 -

MS. DARLENE PRICE: Okay. I want to know if from this moment 

forward the rent will be paid into an account?

THE COURT: Yes. The rent, if I didn't say that, that is what we 

discussed initially, but there will be an estate account opened and 

rent will be paid into the account, yes.

MS. DARLENE PRICE: That is every month?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. DARLENE PRICE: I think the other part was they have 60 days 

clear and solid. And everything that is paid to the mortgage 

company and to the bankruptcy, there has to be paperwork, legal 

paperwork set forward in front of us when everything is being 

decided?

***

THE COURT: When it comes to the rent payment, it will be monthly 

from this point forward.

MS. DARLENE PRICE: Right.

THE COURT: So we are at the end of December. So from January 

into the estate account that will be established.

MS. DARLENE PRICE: Right.

THE COURT: What we discussed initially is that Allison will open 

the estate account.

MS. DARLENE PRICE: Hmm-hmm.

THE COURT: And he will provide proof of that to his attorney. And 

his attorney will share that with Mr. Miller so you know what 

account that is and it will be clear to what monies were deposited. 

When it comes to how much has been paid to the mortgage 

company, Mr. Tall will get that from the mortgage company and 

you will have a printout exactly what is paid and that is what you 

will reconcile.

N.T., 12/21/21, at 11-12. Thus, it is evident that the rent was to go to the
J-S38034-22

- 10 -

Estate and not the Price Sisters.3

Similarly, Mr. Price is not entitled to a credit for 1/3 of the rent. This is

not to say however that Mr. Price will not receive his fair share of any rent left

in the Estate account. Because Mr. Price is a beneficiary of the estate, he is

entitled to a portion of the rent, just as his sisters are upon distribution.

Turning to the application of the numbers to the parties’ agreement, we

observe that, after deducting what Mr. Price paid on behalf of the Estate from

the rent he owed, $100,450 less $69,421.06, Mr. Price still owed $31,028.94

to the Estate for rent. Mr. Price should have deposited this amount into the

Estate account as required by the parties’ agreement. And, although he did

not actually do so, this amount must still be included as an Estate asset

subject to final distribution. Thus, adding this amount to the Proceeds of

$72,919.88 from the sale of the Property that was deposited into the Estate

account, the balance of the estate value should total $103,948.82.

This however is not the amount that the orphans’ court distributed. 

Instead, the court only distributed the proceeds from the sale of the Property,

splitting it evenly among the beneficiaries so that each would receive

$24,306.63. By contrast, had the court included the amount of rent Mr. Price 

still owed to the Estate and divided $102,430.82 equally between the three 

siblings, including Mr. Price, each would be entitled to $34,649.61. The 

____________________________________________

3 We further observe that the amount of rent, $2,450, was a fair market rental 

value determined by an appraiser. This amount was not discounted up front 

in exchange for the portion Mr. Price would receive once the Estate was 

distributed.
J-S38034-22

- 11 -

difference between what the parties are receiving under the orphans’ court’s 

order versus what they should receive is $10,342.98. While this is not a 

significant sum, it is also not “so close” as the orphans’ court opined. 

Moreover, Mr. Price is entitled to much less than the $24,306.63 account for 

the unpaid rent he owed the estate. Instead of $24,306.63, Mr. Price is 

entitled to $34,649.61 minus the unpaid rent of $31,028.94 for a net amount 

of $3,620.66.

In sum, the trial court did not err in distributing 1/3 of the Estate to 

each of the beneficiaries as such distribution was within its equitable powers. 

However, the orphans’ court erred in failing to adhere to the parties’ 

agreement, and by not including the amount of rent Mr. Price still owed to the 

Estate in the total amount it distributed. The total value of the Estate was 

$102,430.82. Because Mr. Price never paid the rent he still owed into the 

Estate account, he is not entitled to receive his full 1/3 distribution from the 

proceeds held in the Estate account. Accordingly, Darlene Price and Kim Price 

shall each receive $34,649.61 from the Estate account. Mr. Price shall receive 

$3,620.66, which is his 1/3 share minus the amount of rent he did not pay 

the Estate. We vacate the order distributing the $72,919.88 in the estate 

account equally between the parties and remand with instructions to the 

orphans’ court to modify its decree in accordance with this memorandum. 

Order vacated and remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished
J-S38034-22

- 12 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/05/2023