J-S03041-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ESTATE OF ELAINE MURRAY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: BRUCE MURRAY

No. 2111 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree June 12, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Orphans' Court at No(s): O.C. No. 94 DE of 2011

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 16, 2015

Bruce Murray appeals pro se from the final decree entered June 12, 

2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Orphans’ Court, 

dismissing his exceptions to the orphans’ court’s adjudication, dated 

September 13, 2013, and docketed September 16, 2013.1 In this appeal, 

____________________________________________

1 Appellee, Charlene Wilson-Doffoney (Doffoney), former Administratrix of 

the Estate of Elaine Murray, has renewed, in her brief, her motion to quash 

that was denied by this Court on November 21, 2014, without prejudice to 

raise the issue before the merits panel. 

Doffoney contends that the appeal is untimely because Murray failed 

to file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the final decree of 

June 12, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(b) (date of entry of an order shall be the 

day on which the clerk makes the notation in the docket that notice of entry 

of the order has been given as required by Pa.R.C.P. 236(b)); Pa.R.A.P. 

903(a) (notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of order 

from which appeal is taken). Doffoney contends that the trial court docket 

indicates that the notice of appeal was filed on July 22, 2014. Therefore, 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S03041-15

- 2 -

Murray lists ten questions, which he distills to three arguments, namely, 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

Doffoney argues that this appeal should be quashed as untimely. Doffoney 

also argues that the appeal should be quashed because Murray failed to 

provide a copy of the notice of appeal to Doffoney or Doffoney’s counsel 

contrary to Pa.R.A.P. 906 (service of notice of appeal).

Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) clearly states that the notice of appeal shall be filed 

within 30 days after the entry of the order. Pa.R.A.P. 105(b) states that an 

appellate court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal. 

However, under the “prisoner mailbox rule,” a legal document is deemed 

filed by an incarcerated litigant, proceeding pro se, on the date it is delivered 

to the proper prison authority or deposited in the prison mailbox. Thomas v. 

Elash, 781 A.2d 170 (Pa. Super. 2001). To avail himself of the prisoner 

mailbox rule, an incarcerated litigant must supply sufficient proof of the date 

of mailing. Id. Murray is an incarcerated litigant, proceeding pro se.

In this case, prior to Doffoney’s motion to quash, this Court issued a 

per curium rule to show cause order. In response, Murray averred that he 

originally filed his notice of appeal on June 20, 2014, but that it was 

returned to him as unfiled. He also averred that he refiled his notice of 

appeal on July 9, 2014. On September 19, 2014, Murray filed a “Supplement 

to Notice to Show Cause Why Appeal Not to Be Quashed,” in the orphans’ 

court, to which he attached a copy of a Department of Corrections (DOC) 

cash slip, bearing his name and signature, the words “Postage, Notice of 

Appeal, Orphan Ct., Superior Ct.”, and time-stamps of “8 July 2014” and 

“July 9.” This Court discharged the rule on September 17, 2014, with the 

proviso that “the issue may be revisited.” Order, 9/17/2014. Doffoney then 

filed the motion to quash, which this Court denied without prejudice, and is 

now at issue.

Based on our review, we are satisfied that Murray has provided 

sufficient proof of the date of mailing with the copy of the DOC cash slip, and 

therefore we find the appeal is timely filed pursuant to the prisoner mailbox 

rule. With regard to Murray’s failure to provide a copy of the notice of 

appeal to Doffoney or Doffoney’s counsel, the “[f]ailure of an appellant to 

take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not 

affect the validity of the appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 902.

Therefore, we deny Doffoney’s motion to quash.
J-S03041-15

- 3 -

abuse of discretion by the orphans’ court, mismanagement of the estate by 

Charlene Wilson-Doffoney (Doffoney), former Administratrix, and conflict of 

interest in the form of dual representation by counsel. For the following 

reasons, we affirm.

The orphans’ court has aptly stated the history of this case, as follows:

Elaine Murray died on September 3, 2009, intestate and 

unmarried, leaving three children, Bruce Murray, Barbara Murray 

and Brenda Murray, to survive her as her heirs-at-law and next 

of kin under the intestate laws.

The Register of Wills granted Letters of Administration to 

Charlene Wilson-Doffoney, as Administratrix of the Estate of 

Elaine Murray, Deceased, on March 3, 2010.

Because she had failed to file an Account of her 

administration of the decedent’s estate, as directed by Decree of 

Judge Matthew D. Carrafiello dated April 1, 2011, [the orphans’ 

court] removed Charlene Wilson-Doffoney from her office of 

Administratrix of the Estate of Elaine Murray, Deceased, by [the 

court’s] Decree dated July 25, 2011.

The Register of Wills granted Letters of Administration 

D.B.N. to Barbara Murray, daughter of the decedent, by Decree 

of the Register dated August 30, 2012.

On August 31, 2012, Barbara Murray, Administratrix 

D.B.N. as aforesaid, signed an Acknowledgment including 

statements that she had met with attorneys representing 

Charlene Wilson-Doffoney; that she had reviewed an Accounting 

for the period March 3, 2010 to July 25, 2011; and that she had 

received a check in the amount of $9,792.80, drawn to the order 

of the Estate of Elaine M. Murray, representing remaining estate 

funds.

On September 25, 2012, Bruce Murray, son of the 

decedent, filed a Petition For Citation For Writ Of Attachment 

because Charlene Wilson-Doffoney had failed to file an Account 

of her administration of the decedent's estate.
J-S03041-15

- 4 -

On November 19, 2012, Charlene Wilson-Doffoney, former 

Administratrix as aforesaid, filed a document entitled “First 

Interim Accounting” which is stated for the period March 3, 2010 

to July 25, 2011 and is now before this Court for audit.

In her Account, the former Administratrix charges herself 

with receipt of cash, both principal and income, totaling 

$43,573.02. She then takes credit for disbursements totaling 

$9,580.22; distributions of cash totaling $ 7,400.00 to Bruce 

Murray, son of the decedent; distributions of cash totaling 

$7,400.00 to Barbara Murray, daughter of the decedent; and, 

distributions of cash totaling $9,400.00 to Brenda Murray, 

daughter of the decedent. The Account shows a balance of cash, 

both principal and income, totaling $9,792.80.

On January 24, 2013, Bruce Murray filed a document 

entitled “Objections To Response” which this Court is treating as 

Objections to the “First Interim Accounting” of Charlene WilsonDoffoney.

In his Objections, Bruce Murray challenge[d] the following 

items in the Account, to wit: payment of $90.00 for death 

certificates on April 2, 2010; payment of $687.00 to Gallo Land 

Transfer on June 4, 2010; payment of $758.24 in real estate 

taxes on premises 1267 South Ringold Street, Philadelphia, on 

June 14, 2010; payment of $1,175.88 in real estate taxes on 

premises 1910 Point Breeze Avenue, Philadelphia, on June 17, 

2010; payment of $750.00 for appraisals to William B. Furia on 

April 14, 2011; payment of $442.50 in legal advertising costs to 

William J. Mansfield on May 23, 2011; payment of $2,911.50 in 

administrator’s commissions to Charlene Wilson-Doffoney on 

April 20, 2011; payment of $2,179.30 in legal fees to Mattioni, 

Ltd., on July 7, 2011; distributions of cash totaling $7,400.00 to 

Bruce Murray, son of the decedent; distributions of cash totaling 

$ 7,400.00 to Barbara Murray, daughter of the decedent; and, 

distributions of cash totaling $9,400.00 to Brenda Murray, 

daughter of the decedent.
J-S03041-15

- 5 -

At a Hearing held on April 29, 2013, Charlene WilsonDoffoney offered the testimony of herself and five Exhibits which 

were marked Exhibit “R-1” through Exhibit “R-5”.[2]

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 9/13/2013, at 1–4.

The orphans’ court, in its adjudication, found Doffoney to be a 

“credible and convincing witness,” and found that she “made all of the 

disbursements and distributions for which she has taken credit in her 

Account.” Id. at 4. The orphans’ court determined disbursements, totaling 

$9,580.22, were “reasonable and necessary,” and were “not excessive.” Id. 

As such, the court dismissed all objections to the disbursements. However,

the court found that Doffoney should be surcharged in the amount of 

$1,333.32 because she distributed cash totaling $7,400.00 to each of Bruce 

Murray and Barbara Murray, but distributed cash totaling $9,400.00 to 

Brenda Murray. The court distributed the surcharge amount, $666.66 to 

Bruce Murray and $666.66 to Barbara Murray as an individual, and 

distributed the remaining estate balance, $9,792.80 to Barbara Murray as 

Administratrix D.B.N. of the Estate of Elaine Murray, Deceased, for further 

____________________________________________

2 Although the record contains Murray’s request for the transcript and court 

orders of August 4, 2014, and November 27, 2013, directing the court 

stenographer to “transcribe the record and make it available to Murray, who 

is IFP,” the notes of testimony of the April 29, 2013 hearing and exhibits are 

not part of the certified record. Moreover, efforts by this Court to obtain the 

transcript from the orphans’ court were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, after 

careful examination of the claims raised in this appeal and the certified 

record, we conclude the absence of the transcript does not inhibit our 

meaningful review.
J-S03041-15

- 6 -

administration. Therefore, the first interim accounting of Doffoney, as 

modified by the ruling in the adjudication, was confirmed absolutely. See

Adjudication, dated 9/13/2013, docketed 9/16/2013. 

Thereafter, Murray filed exceptions to the adjudication.3 See 

Pa.R.O.C. 7.1 (providing that a party may file exceptions to an adjudication 

within 20 days after entry of the adjudication). The orphan’s court, by final 

decree entered June 12, 2014, dismissed the exceptions, affirmed its 

adjudication, and ordered that the final decree constitute a final order 

immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342. This pro se appeal by Murray 

followed.4, 5

Our standard of review is well settled:

____________________________________________

3 Murray’s pro se notice of exception, dated September 30, 2013, attaches a 

certificate of service, indicating copies were sent by Murray from prison to 

Doffoney’s counsel and to “Joseph O’Keefe, Clerk of Orphans Court, 415 City 

Hall.” Murray’s notice of exception does not appear on the docket. Judge 

O’Keefe’s November 27, 2013, decree, stating, inter alia, that “the 

undersigned, sitting alone, shall dispose of the annexed exceptions to my 

adjudication dated September 13, 2013,” attaches Murray’s notice of 

exception. The document bears a time stamp indicating that Doffoney’s 

counsel received the document on October 4, 2013, and Judge O’Keefe 

received the document on November 15, 2013. 

4 The orphans’ court did not direct Murray to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement. The orphans’ court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion, stating that the 

reasons for its decision were set forth in the court’s September 13, 2013,

adjudication and decree. See Opinion per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), 8/4/2014.

5 We note that Murray filed an “Objection to Appellee Brief Misrepresentation 

of Facts,” in this Court on December 18, 2014. Murray also filed a “Judicial 

Notice of Adjudicative Facts” in this Court on February 2, 2014. 
J-S03041-15

- 7 -

Our standard of review of the findings of an Orphans’ 

Court is deferential.

When reviewing a decree entered by the Orphans’ 

Court, this Court must determine whether the record 

is free from legal error and the court’s factual 

findings are supported by the evidence. Because the 

Orphans’ Court sits as the fact-finder, it determines 

the credibility of the witnesses and, on review, we 

will not reverse its credibility determinations absent 

an abuse of that discretion.

However, we are not constrained to give the same 

deference to any resulting legal conclusions.

In re Estate of Harrison, 2000 PA Super 19, 745 A.2d 676, 

678-79 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 646, 758 A.2d 

1200 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

“The Orphans’ Court decision will not be reversed unless there 

has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in 

applying the correct principles of law.” In re Estate of Luongo, 

2003 PA Super 171, 823 A.2d 942, 951 (Pa. Super. 2003), 

appeal denied, 577 Pa. 722, 847 A.2d 1287 (2003).

In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206–207 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal 

denied, 69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). 

Murray first contends that the orphans’ court committed an abuse of 

discretion in failing to address the following items: (1) Check #189, dated 

September 1, 2009, in the amount of $9,252.45 for pre-arrangement of 

funeral costs, (2) a wire transfer from decedent’s bank’s account, and (3) 

Check #991, in the amount of $3,500.00. Murray also contends the 

orphan’s court abused its discretion in dismissing his objections to a $687.00 

disbursement to Gallo Land Transfer on June 10, 2012, and a disbursement 

of $758.24 for real estate taxes for 1267 Ringold Street. In addition, Murray 
J-S03041-15

- 8 -

claims he is entitled to $2,000.00. We find these arguments warrant no 

relief. 

With regard to the first three items, Check “189, the wire transfer, and 

Check #991, we note these specific issues were not raised by Bruce Murray 

in his objections to the first interim accounting of Doffoney, and therefore 

may be deemed waived. See Pa.R.O.C.R. 7.1(b) (“Waiver. Exceptions may 

not be sustained unless the grounds are specified in the exceptions and were 

raised by petition, answer, claim, objection, offer of proof or other 

appropriate method.”).

Even if not waived, Murray has failed to provide any legal or factual 

support for his claims. We note that Doffoney was not appointed 

administratrix until March 3, 2010, well after the issuance of Check #189, 

dated September 1, 2009. Likewise, Doffoney’s appointment came after the 

wire transfer.6 

____________________________________________

6 The wire transfer was addressed in the first interim accounting, as follows:

* The Citizen’s Bank Savings Account (Account #6142-142072) 

had a balance of $0.00 when the Administrator was appointed. 

Research into this issue revealed the following:

On September 8, 2009, five (5) days after Decedent’s death, 

$21,882.12 was transferred by telephone to Citizens Bank 

Checking Account #622381-185-7. On that same day, 

$11,985.00 was transferred by telephone to Savings Account 

#6251-400367, which was an account jointly owned by Malik 

Neal. During her administration of the Estate, Administrator was 

unable to verify the location of these assets.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S03041-15

- 9 -

With regard to the check for $3,500.00, Murray only identifies the 

check as #991, dated “4/02,”7and written on a Citizen’s Bank commercial 

account.8 Murray does not provide the year of the check, the bank account 

number, or any other details to show how the check is relevant to the first 

interim accounting.9 Consequently, this claim is also waived for lack of 

specificity. See In re Estate of Johnson, 970 A.2d 433, 439 n.9 (Pa. 

Super. 2009) (finding waiver where appellant failed to develop his argument 

with any specificity), appeal denied, 980 A.2d 608 (Pa. 2009). 

With respect to the June 4, 2010, disbursement to Gallo Land Transfer 

for $687.00, and the June 14, 2010, disbursement for real estate taxes of 

$758.24 for 1267 Ringgold Street, Murray reiterates the arguments he made 

to the orphans’ court in his objections to the adjudication. Specifically, 

Murray argues that “no transfer of deeds have been filed,” and that the 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

First Interim Accounting of Charlene E. Wilson-Doffoney, Administrator for 

Estate of Elaine M. Murray, 11/19/2012, at 4. The record reflects that Malik 

Neal is believed to be the boyfriend of the decedent’s granddaughter, 

Jakeeva Murray. 

7 See Murray’s Brief at 2.

8 See Murray’s Notice of Exception, 10/4/2013, at ¶9.

9 The first interim accounting covered the time period from March 3, 2010 to 

July 23, 2011. See First Interim Accounting of Charlene E. Wilson-Doffoney, 

Administrator for Estate of Elaine M. Murray, 11/19/2012, at 1. We note the 

first interim accounting does not reflect a $3,500.00 disbursement. 
J-S03041-15

- 10 -

property at 1267 Ringgold was held by “joint ownership.” Murray’s Brief at 

2–3. However, the orphans’ court addressed these amounts in its 

adjudication and Murray fails to provide any argument to show how the 

orphans’ court abused its discretion in dismissing his objections to these 

disbursements. 

In addition, Murray’s claim that he is entitled to $2000.00 warrants no 

relief at this juncture. Murray’s objection is that he did not receive an equal

one-third share distribution. However, this is a first interim accounting, 

which reflects distributions in partial satisfaction of the intestate shares. 

Based on our review of Murray’s arguments, we discern no basis upon 

which to overturn the decision of the orphans’ court on the above-named 

grounds. Accordingly, no relief is due on Murray’s first claim. 

Secondly, Murray asserts that Doffoney mismanaged the estate, and 

claims he has suffered emotional damage as a result. Specifically, he points 

to Doffoney’s unequal distributions of Estate proceeds. Furthermore, Murray 

contests the amounts of monies disbursed to Doffoney and to her counsel, 

Jennifer Popelack, Esquire, of Mattioni, Ltd., for legal fees. These claims 

likewise fail.

As discussed, the orphans’ court surcharged Doffoney for her unequal 

distribution of Estate proceeds among the three heirs, not mismanagement 

of the Estate. Moreover, the orphans’ court addressed the amounts for 

Doffoney’s commissions and Estate legal fees in its decision, and our review 
J-S03041-15

- 11 -

finds Murray has failed to offer any factual or legal argument to demonstrate 

an abuse of discretion by the orphans’ court in finding these amounts 

reasonable and necessary. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 3537 (“[T]he court shall allow 

such compensation to the personal representative as shall in the 

circumstances be reasonable and just, and may calculate such compensation 

on a graduated percentage.”); Estate of Geniviva, 675 A.2d 306, 312–313

(Pa. Super. 1996), appeal denied, 685 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1996). See also 

Estate of Bruner, 691 A.2d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 1997) (“It is well 

established that the responsibility for determining the amount of counsel 

fees rests primarily with the auditing judge.” (citation omitted)). 

Next, Murray contends Popelack represented both the Estate and 

Doffoney, and that this representation constituted a conflict of interest. We 

find, however, that this claim is waived as Murray failed to raise it in his 

objections. See Pa.R.O.C. 7.1(b), supra. In any event, the record does not 

support this claim. Here, the first interim accounting reflects a July 7, 2011 

payment to Mattioni, Ltd., for attorney fees while Doffoney was still 

adminstratrix. See First Interim Accounting of Charlene E. Wilson-Doffoney, 

Administrator for Estate of Elaine M. Murray, 11/19/2012, at 5. Further, the 

record does not show that Popelack was either appointed Administratrix of 

the Estate or retained by any heirs of the Estate. Accordingly, Murray’s 

conflict of interest claim presents no basis upon which to disturb the decision 

of the orphans’ court. 
J-S03041-15

- 12 -

Finally, Murray seeks payment for his legal work done for the Estate. 

However, as the Estate did not benefit from the efforts of Murray, we find no 

abuse of discretion in the decision of the orphans’ court that did not award 

costs to Murray. See In re Padezanin, 937 A.2d 475, 484 (Pa. Super. 

2007) (“[W]here the estate is substantially benefitted by the efforts of 

an exceptant’s counsel, which have resulted in an administrator being 

required to include in his inventory of the estate valuable assets previously 

not included, ... it is within the discretion of the court to compensate the 

exceptant’s counsel fees out of estate funds.” (citation omitted)).

Decree affirmed. Doffoney’s Motion to Quash denied. All other 

outstanding motions dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/16/2015