J-S31019-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

SHARON M. PAIGE, EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF MARVIN SAMUELS, 

DECEASED 

Appellant

v.

FRANCISCO PAPALEO

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 393 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 25, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No(s): No. 190403263

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

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED JANUARY 28, 2022

Appellant, Sharon M. Paige, executor of the estate of Marvin Samuels, 

deceased (“Decedent”), appeals pro se from the judgment entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Appellee, Francisco 

Papaleo. The underlying action concerns Appellee’s purported refusal to 

return Decedent’s personal property to Appellant. We vacate and remand for 

further proceedings. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. 

[Decedent] and [Appellee] were domestic partners in a 

sometimes contentious relationship. [Decedent] and 

[Appellee] resided together in a house they shared as joint 

tenants located at 2227 South 13th Street from 2003 until 

July or August 2012, when the relationship ended and 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S31019-21

- 2 -

[Appellee] moved out of the house. [Decedent] died on May 

7, 2014, and [Appellant] became the duly appointed 

Executor of the Estate in January 2016. 

(Trial Court Opinion, filed April 23, 2021, at 2) (internal citations omitted). 

On April 22, 2019, Appellant filed a complaint against Appellee in the 

Civil Trial Division of the Court of Common Pleas. The complaint did not state 

a specific cause of action. Rather, Appellant asserted that Appellee removed 

Decedent’s personal property from their residence, and Appellee “sold-off 

valuable furniture, electronics, books and collectibles, thereby converting the 

estate’s property to his personal use and profit without accounting to 

[Appellant].” (Complaint, filed 4/22/19, at ¶8). 

Appellee filed preliminary objections on July 10, 2019. Appellee first 

asserted that the Civil Trial Division lacked subject matter jurisdiction, 

pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711. Appellee insisted that “the Orphans’ Court 

maintains the exclusive and mandatory jurisdiction over any and all matters 

involving administration [of] an estate, administrators of the estate, and their 

respective fiduciary roles.” (Preliminary Objections, filed 7/10/19, at ¶4). 

Further, Appellee contended that Appellant’s complaint lacked specificity, and

the complaint failed to demonstrate any legally cognizable claims. 

Consequently, Appellee requested that Appellant’s complaint “be dismissed 

with prejudice and/or the matter be transferred to the ... Orphans’ Court 

Division.” (Id. at ¶22). 

On August 5, 2019, Appellant filed a memorandum of law in opposition 
J-S31019-21

- 3 -

to Appellee’s preliminary objections. Although Appellant concluded that the 

preliminary objections should be overruled, Appellant also admitted that the 

case should be transferred to Orphans’ Court. (See Memorandum of Law, 

filed 8/5/19, at ¶2). The court ultimately disposed of Appellee’s preliminary 

objections as follows: “[I]n consideration of [Appellee’s] Preliminary Objection 

to [Appellant’s] Complaint, and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED 

and DECREED that this Preliminary Objection is SUSTAINED in part.” (Order, 

filed 12/11/19, at 1).1 While the order directed Appellant to file an amended 

complaint, it did not provide any further discussion of the specific arguments 

in Appellee’s preliminary objections. The order also made no mention of 

transferring the matter to Orphans’ Court. 

Appellant filed an amended complaint on January 14, 2020. While the 

caption of the amended complaint still referenced the Civil Trial Division, 

Appellant raised an identical claim regarding Appellee’s retention of

Decedent’s personal property. (See Amended Complaint, filed 1/14/20, at 

¶8). Appellee filed an answer and new matter on January 15, 2020. 

Appellee’s filing did not mention the need to transfer the matter to Orphans’ 

Court. 

Thereafter, Appellant’s case proceeded in the Civil Trial Division. On 

____________________________________________

1 We note that the jurist who disposed of Appellee’s preliminary objections 

was not the same jurist who presided over the subsequent trial. (See Trial 

Court Opinion at 3). 
J-S31019-21

- 4 -

February 4, 2020, the parties appeared for a compulsory arbitration hearing. 

The arbitrators found in favor of Appellee, and Appellant filed a notice of 

appeal from the decision. The court conducted a de novo bench trial on 

September 29, 2020. On September 30, 2020, the court entered its verdict 

in favor of Appellee. The court found Appellant’s “claims are barred by laches 

because [Appellant] did not exercise due diligence in bringing this claim and 

[Appellee] has accordingly been prejudiced....” (Trial Work Sheet, filed 

9/30/20, at 1). Even if laches did not apply, the court concluded that 

Appellant was not entitled to relief where she “failed to definitively identify the 

specific personal property at issue, whether the decedent was clearly the sole 

owner of the property ... and/or the fair value of the property.” (Id.) 

Appellant timely filed post-trial motions on Monday, October 12, 2020. 

At that point, the court discovered that Appellant’s attorney was suspended 

from the practice of law in Pennsylvania when he filed the post-trial motions. 

(See Trial Court Opinion at 1-2; N.T. Hearing, 1/7/21, at 4-5). On October 

15, 2020, the court struck Appellant’s post-trial motions. The court also 

permitted Appellant to file new post-trial motions, either counseled or pro se. 

Appellant subsequently filed pro se post-trial motions, and the court 

conducted a hearing on January 7, 2021. On January 8, 2021, the court 

denied Appellant’s post-trial motions. 

Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on Monday, February 8, 2021. 

On February 19, 2021, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 
J-S31019-21

- 5 -

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Following the grant of 

an extension, Appellant filed a pro se Rule 1925(b) statement on March 19, 

2021. On April 25, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se praecipe to enter judgment 

in favor of Appellee.2 

Appellant now raises four issues for our review: 

Did not the trial court err by overlooking the Orphans’ Court 

as the court of [Appellant’s] first and original jurisdiction

(seeking relief from [Appellee’s] harassment, abuse and

violation of rights)[?] 

Did not the trial court err in assuming jurisdiction where the

Orphans’ Court had exclusive mandatory jurisdiction over

matters involving power of attorney[?] 

Did not the trial court err in assuming jurisdiction where the

Orphans’ Court had mandatory jurisdiction over fiduciaries,

personal property, and distribution of estates[?] 

Did not the court below err when failing to transfer 

[Appellant’s] [case] to the Orphans’ Court sua sponte[?] 

(Appellant’s Brief at 2). 

Appellant’s issues are related, and we address them together. Appellant 

contends that Appellee “obstructed and impeded [Appellant’s] efforts to 

access any estate property in order to perform her duties” as executor. (Id.

____________________________________________

2 Appellant filed her pro se notice of appeal on February 8, 2021. Final 

judgment on the verdict, however, was not entered until April 25, 2021. Thus, 

Appellant’s notice of appeal relates forward to April 25, 2021, the date final 

judgment was entered and copies of the judgment were distributed to all the 

appropriate parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating notice of appeal filed 

after court’s determination but before entry of appealable order shall be 

treated as filed after such entry and on day thereof). 
J-S31019-21

- 6 -

at 26). Appellant maintains that the Orphans’ Court possessed mandatory 

jurisdiction over this dispute, and the Civil Trial Division erred by failing to 

transfer the matter after Appellee properly raised the issue of jurisdiction in 

his preliminary objections. Appellant also notes that the issue of subject 

matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Appellant concludes that this 

Court must vacate the judgment in favor of Appellee and remand the matter 

for further proceedings in the Orphans’ Court. We agree. 

“It is well-settled that the question of subject matter jurisdiction may 

be raised at any time, by any party, or by the court sua sponte. Our standard 

of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” In re Estate of 

Ciuccarelli, 81 A.3d 953, 958 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted). “The assessment of ‘whether a court has subject 

matter jurisdiction inquires into the competency of the court to determine 

controversies of the general class to which the case presented for 

consideration belongs.’” Assouline v. Reynolds, 656 Pa. 133, ___, 219 A.3d 

1131, 1137 (2019) (quoting Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. 

Vukman, 621 Pa. 192, 197-98, 77 A.3d 547, 550 (2013)). 

Jurisdiction is the capacity to pronounce a judgment of the 

law on an issue brought before the court through due 

process of law. It is the right to adjudicate concerning the 

subject matter in a given case.... Without such jurisdiction, 

there is no authority to give judgment and one so entered 

is without force or effect. The trial court has jurisdiction if 

it is competent to hear or determine controversies of the 

general nature of the matter involved sub judice. 

Jurisdiction lies if the court had power to enter upon the 

inquiry, not whether it might ultimately decide that it could 
J-S31019-21

- 7 -

not give relief in the particular case. 

Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra at 958 (quoting Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum, 

L.P., 767 A.2d 564, 568 (Pa.Super. 2001)). 

The jurisdiction of Orphans’ Court is governed by statute, in pertinent 

part, as follows: 

§ 711. Mandatory exercise of jurisdiction through 

orphans’ court division in general 

Except as provided in section 712 (relating to 

nonmandatory exercise of jurisdiction through the orphans’

court division) and section 713 (relating to special 

provisions for Philadelphia County), the jurisdiction of the 

court of common pleas over the following shall be exercised 

through its orphans’ court division:

(1) Decedents’ estates.—The administration 

and distribution of the real and personal property of 

decedents’ estates and the control of the decedent’s 

burial. 

* * *

(12) Fiduciaries.—The appointment, control, 

settlement of the accounts of, removal and discharge of, 

and allowance to and allocation of compensation among, 

all fiduciaries of estates and trusts, jurisdiction of which 

is exercised through the orphans’ court division, except 

that the register shall continue to grant letters 

testamentary and of administration to personal 

representatives as heretofore. 

* * *

20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711(1), (12). 

“Taken together, these provisions mandate that the Orphans’ Court 

Division has ‘exclusive jurisdiction of the administration and distribution of 
J-S31019-21

- 8 -

decedents’ estates, of the control of estate fiduciaries, and of the settlement 

of their accounts.’” Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra at 958 (quoting Ostroff v. 

Yaslyk, 419 Pa. 183, 186, 213 A.2d 272, 274 (1965)). See also Lucidore 

v. Novak, 570 A.2d 93, 95 (Pa.Super. 1990) (stating “it is incorrect to file a 

complaint in the civil division seeking to set aside the will”). “It is well-settled 

that ‘[t]he court of common pleas, even as a court of equity, cannot interfere 

in a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court.’” Estate 

of Ciuccarelli, supra at 961-62 (quoting Trout v. Lukey, 402 Pa. 123, 126, 

166 A.2d 654, 655 (1961)). 

Further, the Judicial Code provides the proper remedy for matters that 

are commenced in the wrong court division: 

§ 5103. Transfer of erroneously filed matters

(a) General rule.—If an appeal or other matter is 

taken to or brought in a court or magisterial district of this 

Commonwealth which does not have jurisdiction of the 

appeal or other matter, the court or magisterial district 

judge shall not quash such appeal or dismiss the matter, but 

shall transfer the record thereof to the proper tribunal of this 

Commonwealth, where the appeal or other matter shall be 

treated as if originally filed in the transferee tribunal on the 

date when the appeal or other matter was first filed in a 

court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth. A matter 

which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or 

magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth but which 

is commenced in any other tribunal of this Commonwealth 

shall be transferred by the other tribunal to the proper court 

or magisterial district of this Commonwealth where it shall 

be treated as if originally filed in the transferee court or 

magisterial district of this Commonwealth on the date when 

first filed in the other tribunal. 

* * *
J-S31019-21

- 9 -

(c) Interdivisional transfers.—If an appeal or other 

matter is taken to, brought in, or transferred to a division of 

a court to which such matter is not allocated by law, the 

court shall not quash such appeal or dismiss the matter, but 

shall transfer the record thereof to the proper division of the 

court, where the appeal or other matter shall be treated as 

if originally filed in the transferee division on the date first 

filed in a court or magisterial district. 

* * *

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(a), (c). See also Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra (holding

Civil Trial Division lacked authority to dismiss claims related to management 

of escrowed assets against administratrix of decedent’s estate for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction; Civil Trial Division was statutorily obligated to 

transfer case to Orphans’ Court, because Orphans’ Court had mandatory and 

exclusive jurisdiction to hear case). 

Instantly, the trial court did not provide any substantive analysis 

regarding the issue of subject matter jurisdiction: 

Items one, two and six in [Appellant’s Rule] 1925(b) 

Statement concern whether this case should have been 

transferred to the Orphans’ Court Division.... What 

[Appellant] does not say or acknowledge is that she filed 

this case in the Civil Trial Division. [Appellee] filed the 

Preliminary Objections to transfer the case to the Orphans’ 

Court Division. While [Appellant] may have joined in those 

Preliminary Objections, [Appellant] filed her case in this 

[c]ourt. It is absurd that she would now claim the [c]ourt 

committed error by failing to transfer her case to the 

Orphans’ Court Division. 

(Trial Court Opinion at 10). 

Contrary to the court’s assertion, the fact that Appellant filed her 
J-S31019-21

- 10 -

amended complaint in the Civil Trial Division is not determinative of whether 

transfer was required. Appellant’s amended complaint, brought in her 

capacity as the executor of Decedent’s estate, alleged that Appellee 

improperly “sold-off” Decedent’s personal property “without accounting to” 

Appellant. (Amended Complaint at ¶8). Appellant’s claim speaks to the 

administration and distribution of the personal property of Decedent’s estate, 

and the subject matter of the claim falls under the Orphans’ Court Division’s 

statutory grant of exclusive jurisdiction. See 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711(1); Estate 

of Ciuccarelli, supra. See also In re Thomas’ Estate, 457 Pa. 546, 327 

A.2d 31 (1974) (explaining jurisdiction of Orphans’ Court is entirely of 

statutory origin vesting it with exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership 

of personal property registered in name of decedent or alleged by personal 

representative to have been in possession of decedent at time of death). 

Because the Orphans’ Court Division has exclusive and mandatory 

jurisdiction, the Civil Trial Division should have transferred the instant case 

following the preliminary objections to subject matter jurisdiction. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(a), (c); Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra. Consequently, we 

vacate the judgment entered in favor of Appellee and remand the case to the 

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

which may proceed in a manner consistent with this decision. 

Judgment vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction 

relinquished. 
J-S31019-21

- 11 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/28/2022