J-A06027-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: DILLE FAMILY TRUST

APPEAL OF: LORRAINE DILLE 

WILLIAMS AND ROBERT NICHOLS 

FLINT DILLE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 26 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered December 6, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County 

Orphans' Court at No(s): 43 of 2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: May 16, 2024

Lorraine Dille Williams and Robert Nichols Flint Dille (collectively 

“Appellants” or “Beneficiaries”) appeal from the order entered December 6, 

2022, finding that the situs of the Dille Family Trust (“DFT”) has been and 

remains in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania since June 6, 2011.

This matter is but one in a lengthy dispute over the rights to the fictional 

world of Buck Rogers. It started with a feud between the Dille and Nowlan 

families around the time of the creation of the character Buck Rogers in the 

late 1920’s. This appeal began with a disagreement over the situs of the DFT.

The DFT was created on August 16, 1979, in the state of California, by 

Robert C. Dille (“Mr. Dille”) and Virginia N. Dille (“Mrs. Dille”) (collectively 

“Settlors”). They amended the trust on January 5, 1982. Settlors were the 

original trustees of the DFT. Their children, Appellants, are the DFT’s sole 
J-A06027-24

- 2 -

beneficiaries. When Mr. Dille died in 1983, Arthur Martin became co-trustee 

with Mrs. Dille. On February 1, 1989, the co-trustees and Appellants executed 

a document transferring the situs of the DFT to Illinois. When Mrs. Dille died 

in 2009, Mr. Martin became sole trustee. He resigned from that position on 

March 8, 2011. The DFT named Dennis Fox as successor trustee, however, he 

never acted as trustee and resigned on May 4, 2011. The last-named 

successor trustee in the DFT was American Guarantee and Trust Company but 

they too declined to accept the position. 

As the DFT did not have a trustee, Appellants asked Attorney Louise A. 

Geer to become trustee. She accepted on June 6, 2011. She began 

administering the DFT from her office in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. On 

August 26, 2018, Appellants notified Attorney Geer that she was no longer the 

trustee of the DFT. Appellants did not seek a court order to remove Attorney 

Geer as trustee of the DFT.1

On February 20, 2019, Appellants signed an “Instrument Transferring 

Situs of Trust” which indicated that they intended to transfer the situs of the 

DFT to California. That same date, Appellants signed an “Instrument 

Confirming Request for Mandatory Distribution and Removal of Entirety of 

____________________________________________

1 Appellants, in a separate appeal, challenged the orphans’ court’s ruling that 

Attorney Geer was lawfully appointed trustee in 2011 and the attempted 

removal of Attorney Geer was invalid in 2018. We affirmed the orphans’ 

court’s rulings in a memorandum opinion on September 19, 2023. See In re 

Dille Family Trust, 2023 WL 6121850, unpublished memorandum, at *17

(Pa. Super. filed September 19, 2023).
J-A06027-24

- 3 -

Shares of Principal in Trust Estate of the Dille Family Trust” which they claim

removed all assets from the DFT, effectively terminating the trust. On April 5, 

2019, Appellants filed a petition in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

California, attaching both February 20, 2019 documents signed by Appellants. 

That petition requested the trial court in Los Angeles County, California, to 

order that Attorney Geer was not trustee of the DFT, that all assets of the DFT 

were removed on February 20, 2019, to appoint Appellants as co-trustees of 

the DFT, and to order Attorney Geer to turn over all DFT property to 

Appellants. This petition was dismissed on July 11, 2019, for lack of 

jurisdiction and improper venue, finding that the principal place of the DFT’s 

administration was Pennsylvania.

On February 28, 2019, Attorney Geer, as trustee of the DFT, executed 

a purchase agreement with the Buck Rogers Company and Nowlan Family 

Trust selling any and all assets the DFT owned of the trademark and 

intellectual property rights to Buck Rogers for $300,000.00.

On April 17, 2019, Attorney Geer instituted this action by filing a petition 

for a citation to show cause why she is not the trustee of the DFT, why 

Pennsylvania is not the situs of the DFT, and why the proceeds from the 

purchase agreement should not be distributed to the DFT. 

On September 3, 2020, Appellants again signed an “Instrument 

Transferring Situs of Trust: Dille Family Trust” purporting to transfer the situs 

of the DFT to California. This “Instrument” was filed with the Superior Court 
J-A06027-24

- 4 -

of Los Angeles County, California on September 18, 2020. This filing did not 

request a court order to change the situs to California. Nor did Appellants seek 

a court order from Pennsylvania to change the situs to California.

On September 23, 2020, Dennis Fox, the named successor trustee who 

resigned and never acted as trustee for the DFT, filed, through his attorney, 

Jennifer Mihok, a Praecipe to Discontinue Attorney Geer’s action with the 

orphans’ court, purporting to be the trustee of the DFT. The orphans’ court 

ordered the prothonotary, on September 24, 2020, not to take action on the 

praecipe. 

On September 28, 2020, Appellants filed with the orphans’ court a 

“Notice of No Subject Matter Jurisdiction” and attached their September 18, 

2020, filing with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. The 

orphans’ court entered an order on October 8, 2020, declaring Appellants’ 

notice a nullity.

On October 21, 2020, Attorney Geer filed a motion requesting the court 

strike or nullify Appellants’ situs filing in California and enjoin Mr. Fox from 

holding himself out as trustee of the DFT. The court deferred its ruling on this 

motion until its final decision on whether Attorney Geer was lawfully appointed 

trustee and remained trustee after the August 26, 2018, notification from 

Appellants that they removed Attorney Geer as trustee. 

On October 29, 2020, Mr. Fox, still purporting to be trustee of the DFT,

along with Appellants, filed a petition in the Superior Court of San Mateo 
J-A06027-24

- 5 -

County, California, asking the court to approve a retroactive distribution of all 

DFT assets and terminate the DFT. This was filed without any notice to 

Attorney Geer, the Nowlan Family Trust (which had been permitted to 

intervene below), and the orphans’ court in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.

Appellants and Mr. Fox did not inform the San Mateo County court of the Los 

Angeles County July 11, 2019, order that found California did not have 

jurisdiction of the DFT and all recent administration of the DFT was conducted 

in Pennsylvania. Although the San Mateo County court initially granted the 

petition, the court subsequently withdrew the order and dismissed the petition 

with prejudice when it learned of the Los Angeles County order and pending 

Lawrence County case.

On January 10, 2022, the orphans’ court issued its final findings of fact 

and conclusions of law regarding that portion of Attorney Geer’s April 17, 

2019, petition that sought confirmation of her status as trustee of the DFT. 

The orphans’ court found Attorney Geer was lawfully appointed trustee and 

the attempt to remove her on August 26, 2018, was ineffective under 

Pennsylvania law. This Court, in a memorandum decision on September 19, 

2023, affirmed the orphans’ court’s decision. See In re Dille Family Trust, 

2023 WL 6121850, unpublished memorandum (Pa. Super. filed September 

19, 2023).

Meanwhile, on March 9, 2022, the orphans’ court scheduled a hearing 

on Attorney Geer’s October 21, 2020, motion requesting the court to strike or 
J-A06027-24

- 6 -

nullify Appellants’ situs filing. After the parties filed stipulations of fact, the 

court cancelled the hearing, and decided the motion on the stipulations of fact 

and the parties’ briefs. On December 6, 2022, the orphans’ court ordered that, 

from June 6, 2011, until the date of the order, the situs of the DFT was and 

remained in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. See Order, 12/6/22. Appellants 

timely appealed and complied with the orphans’ court’s order to file a Rule 

1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Now that we have reviewed the sometimes exhausting procedural 

history of this case, we must turn our attention first to determine if this appeal 

is properly before us. On March 28, 2023, we issued a rule directing Appellants 

to show cause why the December 6, 2022, order is appealable. Appellants 

filed a timely response indicating their belief that the order is appealable under 

Rule 342(a)(4) and (5). See Pa.R.A.P. 342. We discharged the rule to show 

cause and allowed the appeal to proceed on May 5, 2023. See Per Curiam

Order, 5/5/23. However, we notified the parties that the ruling was not binding 

on this Court as a final determination of the propriety of the appeal and that 

it may be revisited by the merits panel. See id. Appellants do not address the 

propriety of the appeal in their brief, but Appellees, the Nowlan Family Trust 

and Buck Rogers Company, argue that the appeal should be quashed. See 

Appellee’s (“Intervenors”) Brief, at 3-5.

“It is well-settled that an appeal may be taken from: (1) a final order or 

an order certified as a final order; (2) an interlocutory order as of right; (3) 
J-A06027-24

- 7 -

an interlocutory order by permission; or (4) a collateral order.” In re Trust 

of John S. Middleton, --- A.3d ---, 2024 WL 1249659, at *2 (Pa. Super. filed 

March 25, 2024) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). Appellants 

assert that the appeal is from an interlocutory order as of right under Rule 

342(a)(4) and (5). See Response to Rule to Show Cause, 4/7/23, at 4. Rule 

342 provides, in relevant part:

(a) General rule. An appeal may be taken as of right from the 

following orders of the Orphans' Court Division:

...

(4) An order interpreting, modifying, reforming or 

terminating a trust;

(5) An order determining the status of fiduciaries, 

beneficiaries, or creditors in an estate, trust, or 

guardianship[.]

Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(4), (5). The December 6, 2022, order Appellants appeal from 

states, in relevant part:

AND NOW, this 6th day of DECEMBER, 2022, following a hearing 

on Louise Geer's Motion to Strike or Nullify the September 18, 

2020 Change of Situs Filing by the Beneficiaries, this Court issues 

the following ORDER:

1. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the Trustee of the 

Dille Family Trust (Louise Geer) and the administration of the Dille 

Family Trust and personal jurisdiction over Robert Nichols Flint 

Dille and Lorraine Dille Williams with regard to all matters 

concerning the Dille Family Trust

2. For the reasons stated in this Court's Opinion of this same date, 

this Court finds that since June [6], 2011, the situs of the Dille 

Family Trust has been in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania and 

remains in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania as of the date of this 

Order.
J-A06027-24

- 8 -

Orphans’ Court Order, 12/6/22. The court’s opinion of December 6, 2022, 

states the issue as “whether or not [the Beneficiaries] can change the situs of 

the Trust without the agreement of the Trustee and without permission of the 

Court.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 12/6/22, at 5. The court goes on to quote the 

DFT:

Paragraph 2.F of the Amended Trust reads as follows:

2.F Trust Situs. This Trust Agreement is a California 

contract and creates a California Trust, and all of the 

terms and provisions hereof shall be interpreted 

according to the laws of the State of California, except 

that a majority of the Beneficiaries may transfer the 

Trust situs to a more convenient jurisdiction.

Id. (emphasis removed). The orphans’ court was, in part, interpreting the 

trust. Therefore, we find that Appellants have established that this is an 

interlocutory appeal as of right under Rule 342(a)(4). 

Turning to the merits, Appellants raise the following three claims:

1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in its refusal to consider as 

evidence a document dated February 20, 2019, in which the 

Beneficiaries exercised their right to transfer the situs of the DFT 

to California prior to Geer’s filing of the Petition for Citation, where 

all parties had “consented and agreed” the document should be 

included within the “evidence entered into the record in the 

case[]”[?]

2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by creating a new 

exception to the General Assembly’s directive that, with respect 

to situs, “the provisions of a trust instrument prevail over any 

contrary provisions of the Uniform Trust Act,” which exception 

would permit a court to ignore the terms of the trust if the court 

determines that “the exercise of the specific provision will defeat 

the purposes of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act ... and make 

court supervision impossible[]”[?]
J-A06027-24

- 9 -

3. Whether the Beneficiaries’ appeal of a January 11, 2022, 

[o]rder concluding that the situs of the Trust was changed from 

Illinois to Pennsylvania as of June 6, 2011, divested the [t]rial 

[c]ourt of jurisdiction to proceed further with respect to any claims 

regarding the appropriate situs of the DFT[?]

Appellants’ Brief, at 5-6 (brackets and footnote omitted).

Regarding our standard and scope of review of an appeal from an 

Orphans’ Court decision:

[w]e 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. Where the rules of law on which 

the court relied are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will 

reverse the court’s decree.

In re Vincent J. Fumo Irrevocable Children’s Trust ex rel. Fumo, 104 

A.3d 535, 539 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and brackets omitted).

Furthermore, “the interpretation of a trust [] presents a question of law. As 

such, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” 

In re Estate of McFadden, 100 A.3d 645, 650 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) 

(citations omitted).

We address Appellants’ second claim first, as it implicates their first 

claim of error. In Appellants’ second claim, they argue that the orphans’ court 

created a new exception to the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act’s general policy 

that the trust instrument prevails when the orphans’ court did not follow 

section 2.F of the DFT which provides, in part: “a majority of the Beneficiaries 
J-A06027-24

- 10 -

may transfer the Trust situs to a more convenient jurisdiction.” Appellants’ 

Brief, at 34, 36.

The Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act, 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 7701-7799.3, 

provides that “the provisions of a trust instrument prevail over any contrary 

provisions of this chapter.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 7705(a). There are a number of 

mandatory rules, however, that the trust instrument must bend to, including 

“[t]he power of the court to take action and exercise jurisdiction as may be 

necessary in the interests of justice.” 20 Pa.C.S. §7705(b)(13). The orphans’

court found that subsection 7705(a) and the provision in the DFT at 2.F, must 

bend to the “purposes of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act” because if it did 

not, it would “make . . . court supervision impossible.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 

12/6/22, at 5.

In reaching its decision, the orphans’ court relied on the decision from 

the court in Los Angeles County, California. Notably, the February 20, 2019,

document purporting to transfer the situs to California was attached to the 

April 5, 2019, petition filed in Los Angeles County, California. The petition 

requested the California court to order that Attorney Geer was not the trustee 

of the DFT, that all assets of the DFT were removed on February 20, 2019, to 

appoint Appellants as co-trustees of the DFT, and to order Attorney Geer to 

turn over all DFT property to Appellants. That petition was dismissed by the 

California court because it did not have jurisdiction over Attorney Geer or the 
J-A06027-24

- 11 -

DFT. See Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Order, 7/11/19, 

at 2. The California court held, in part:

Here, [] the principal place of administration of the trust has 

not been in California since long before Geer accepted the 

trusteeship. Probate Code section 17002 states the principal place 

of administration is the “usual place where the day-to-day activity 

of the trust is carried on by the trustee....” The evidence 

demonstrated all these activities took place in Pennsylvania. ... The 

Probate Code provides no basis for an exercise of jurisdiction. 

... Not all agreements which apply California law are subject 

to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. Here, where the trust 

has no substantive connection with this state, there is no 

jurisdiction, even if it applies California law. Similarly, section 

17200 specifies that the Court may have subject matter 

jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a trust, as well as over the 

trust’s actions as they affect the wider world. This is only true, 

however, [where] the Court has jurisdiction over the trust in the 

first place. Here, it does not.

Id.

As the California court already held that it did not have jurisdiction over 

either the DFT or Attorney Geer as trustee, changing the situs to California 

would leave the DFT without any court supervision. Allowing the change in 

situs, as was attempted prior to the above-quoted Los Angeles County order, 

still would not give the California courts jurisdiction over Attorney Geer. 

The orphans' court considered the 2019 order from the court in Los 

Angeles County, California in its decision. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 

12/6/22, at 8-9. The orphans’ court correctly observed that it is vitally 

important for there to be court supervision over a trust and that if it permitted 

this transfer of situs, no court would have jurisdiction over the DFT and the 
J-A06027-24

- 12 -

transfer would “make[] court supervision impossible.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 

12/6/22, at 5, 8. While it is true, as Appellants allege, that “the provisions of 

a trust instrument prevail over any contrary provisions of [the Pennsylvania 

Uniform Trust Act,]” those provisions must bend to the court “as may be 

necessary in the interests of justice.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 7705(a), (b)(13). As the 

orphans’ court explained:

[T]he clear and explicit language of paragraph 2.F with regard to 

situs must be followed, except where the exercise of the specific 

provision will defeat the purposes of the Pennsylvania Uniform 

Trust Act and makes court supervision impossible.

* * *

If the situs was transferred to California, without a Pennsylvania 

Court’s approval and without the consent of the Trustee, California 

would have no personal jurisdiction over the Trustee located in 

Pennsylvania and therefore would not have the ability to supervise 

the administration of the Trust as contemplated by the Uniform 

Trust Act, which is primarily mirrored in Pennsylvania’s Uniform 

Trust Act.

* * *

While the Beneficiaries have a right given to them by the Amended 

Trust document to transfer the situs to, “a more convenient 

jurisdiction,” that right must be exercised only in conjunction with 

either the current Trustee submitting to the jurisdiction of 

California or pursuant to an Order of Court from the Court of 

Common Pleas of Lawrence County authorizing a change of 

situs[.] ... If the current Trustee is removed, the provision in the 

Amended Trust that allows the Beneficiaries to change [the] situs 

for their convenience will be given deference and they will not be 

required to show cause to justify a change in situs.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 12/6/22, at 5, 8, 9. The orphans’ court was justifiably 

concerned that allowing the change of situs pursuant to the DFT’s provision at 
J-A06027-24

- 13 -

2.F would leave the DFT, and, in turn, Appellants, to do as they please and 

without court supervision. The orphans’ court’s decision, therefore, was valid 

as it was in the interests of justice, not, as Appellants allege, pursuant to a 

new exception to the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 

7705(b)(13) (allowing a court to disregard a specific provision in a trust 

pursuant to “[t]he power of the court to take action and exercise jurisdiction 

as may be necessary in the interests of justice.”). Appellants’ issue lacks 

merit.

Furthermore, as Appellees, the Nowlan Family Trust and Buck Rogers 

Company note, the orphans’ court is a court of equity and “may decline to 

enforce express provisions of a trust when the party seeking enforcement has 

unclean hands.” In re Vincent J. Fumo, 104 A.3d at 546; Appellee’s 

(“Intervenors”) Brief, at 15-19. Our Court explained:

The unclean hands doctrine derives from the unwillingness of a 

court to give relief to a suitor who has so conducted himself as to 

shock the moral sensibilities of the judge, and it has nothing to do 

with the rights or liabilities of the parties. This doctrine applies 

where the wrongdoing directly affects the relationship subsisting 

between the parties and is directly connected with the matter in 

controversy.

Id. at 546-47 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The doctrine of unclean hands also provides a basis for the orphans’

court here to decline to enforce the provision of 2.F. Appellants have thrice 

attempted to thwart the power of the orphans’ court below. See Orphans’ 

Court Opinion, 2/21/23, at 4. First, Appellants signed and filed, in Los Angeles 
J-A06027-24

- 14 -

County, California, an instrument purporting to transfer situs of the DFT to 

California, after both the Los Angeles County court and the court below held 

that Lawrence County was the proper jurisdiction and venue of the DFT 

matters. See Change of Situs Filing on Behalf of Dille Family Trust, 9/18/20, 

at 1-2 (pagination added). Appellants then filed a notice of no subject matter 

jurisdiction below attaching the Los Angeles County filing. See Beneficiaries’ 

Notice of No Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 9/28/20, at 3. Next, Appellants held 

out Dennis Fox as trustee after admitting to the orphans’ court that Mr. Fox 

had never accepted the position as trustee. See Notice of Lack of Subject 

Matter Jurisdiction, 9/28/20, at 1. While holding out Mr. Fox as trustee, he 

filed a Praecipe to Discontinue the action below, asserting he was trustee of 

the DFT. See Praecipe to Discontinue, 9/23/20. 

Finally, Appellants filed a petition in San Mateo County, California, 

without notice to Attorney Geer, the Nowlan Family Trust, and the orphans’ 

court. See Ex Parte Petition for Order Approving Termination of Trust, 

10/29/20, at 4-5 (listing identities of “known Beneficiaries and interested 

persons”). In that petition, Appellants did not tell the San Mateo County court 

about the pending matter in orphans’ court and the order previously entered 

in Los Angeles County. Id. After discovering those facts, the court in San 

Mateo County noted that “[t]he beneficiaries [] perpetrated a fraud upon this 

court ... .” See N.T. Hearing in San Mateo County, California, 3/30/21, at 17.
J-A06027-24

- 15 -

The San Mateo County court then dismissed Appellants’ petition with 

prejudice.

This last attempt was met with sanctions in Pennsylvania. The orphans’ 

court had entered an order, requested by Appellants, enjoining any 

distribution of DFT assets prior to the filing in San Mateo County, California. 

After the filing in San Mateo County, California, Appellants were sanctioned. 

We affirmed the orphans’ court’s decision on September 11, 2023. See In re 

Dille Family Trust, 2023 WL 5843798, unpublished memorandum, at *14, 

*17 (Pa. Super. filed September 11, 2023). As Appellants have unclean hands, 

the orphans’ court had the authority to decline to enforce section 2.F of the 

DFT, in addition to enforcing the interests of justice exception of the 

Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act. Therefore, for this reason, as well as the 

interests of justice exception, this issue has no merit.

Appellants contend that the orphans’ court erred by not considering the 

February 20, 2019, “Instrument Transferring Situs of Trust.” Appellants’ Brief, 

at 24, 30. That document purported to transfer the situs of the DFT from 

Illinois to California. The orphans’ court noted in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that:

The Motion to Nullify the Situs transfer purportedly signed 

on September 3, 2020 and filed at the dismissed case in the 

County of Los Angeles on September 30, 2020 was the issue 

before the [c]ourt. All parties agreed that the Beneficiaries did in 

fact sign the situs transfer document on September 3, 2020 and 

the question before the [c]ourt was whether or not the 

Beneficiaries[’] signing of that document effectuated a transfer of 

the situs to the state of California. This [c]ourt made its finding 

that the Beneficiaries’ signing of the document was ineffective and 

that the situs was not transferred to the state of California. 
J-A06027-24

- 16 -

Whether the Beneficiaries signed another document on a prior 

date, but still long after Louise Geer became the Trustee of the 

Dille Family Trust, is irrelevant.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/21/23, at 8.

The orphans’ court’s decision responded to Attorney Geer’s motion 

requesting the court strike or nullify Appellants’ September 18, 2020, situs 

filing in California. See Opinion with regard to the Situs of the Dille Family 

Trust following the Beneficiaries September 18, 2020, filing of a “Change of 

Situs” to California, 12/6/22. The question, therefore, that the orphans’ court 

was considering at the time it issued its December 6, 2022, opinion, was 

whether the September 2020 situs filing had effectuated a transfer of the 

DFT’s situs to California. Based upon this question, the February 20, 2019,

document was irrelevant. See Pa.R.E. 401 (“Evidence is relevant if ... it has 

any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without 

the evidence; and [] the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”). 

In other words, whether or not Appellants tried to change the situs on 

February 20, 2019, would not be of consequence to whether or not Appellants’ 

September 18, 2020, situs filing changed the situs to California.

Moreover, even if the orphans’ court failed to consider, as Appellants’ 

claim, the February 20, 2019, change of situs instrument, it was harmless 

because the orphans’ court considered the Los Angeles County, California 

order of July 11, 2019, and the September 3, 2020, change of situs instrument

which was filed with the Los Angeles County, California court on September 
J-A06027-24

- 17 -

18, 2020. The September 3, 2020, change of situs instrument has

substantially the same language as the February 20, 2019, change of situs 

instrument. Compare Instrument Transferring Situs of Trust, 2/20/19, with

Instrument Transferring Situs of Trust: Dille Family Trust, 9/3/20. As the 

orphans’ court considered both the September 3, 2020, change of situs 

instrument and the order from the Los Angeles County, California court which 

had the February 20, 2019, change of situs instrument attached to its filing, 

considering the February 20, 2019, instrument would not have made a 

difference in its decision. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/21/23, at 8; Orphans’ 

Court Opinion, 12/6/22, at 9 (holding the “same analysis applies to [the 

September 3, 2020] attempt to transfer the situs to California.”). As such, the 

orphans’ court did not err by not expressly considering the February 20, 2019, 

change of situs instrument, as alleged by Appellants.

Turning to Appellants’ final claim, they allege the orphans’ court was 

divested of jurisdiction because Appellants had filed an appeal of the orphans’ 

court’s decision that Attorney Geer was trustee. Appellants’ Brief, at 44. 

Appellants allege Rule 1701(a) is controlling here: “Except as otherwise 

prescribed by these rules, after an appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial 

order is sought, the trial court or other government unit may no longer 

proceed further in the matter.” Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a).

However, Rule 1701(a) is qualified by Rule 1701(c), which 

provides in pertinent part: Where only a particular item or claim 

adjudged in the matter is involved in an appeal, the appeal shall 

operate to prevent the trial court from proceeding further with 
J-A06027-24

- 18 -

only such item or claim, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court 

or by the appellate court or a judge thereof as necessary to 

preserve the rights of the appellant.

Rosen v. Rosen, 549 A.2d 561, 564 (Pa. 1988) (internal citation, brackets 

and ellipses omitted). “The purpose of Rule 1701(c) is to prevent appeals of 

collateral issues from delaying the resolution of the basic issues where the 

proceeding below can continue without prejudicing the rights of the party

seeking the interim review.” Id.

In this protracted case, Appellants appealed from a January 11, 2022, 

order which held that Attorney Louise Geer was lawfully appointed Trustee of 

the DFT on June 6, 2011, and that their attempted removal of her as Trustee 

on August 26, 2018, was ineffective. That appeal was filed on January 21, 

2022. It is undisputed that this was not an appeal from a final order. The 

January 11, 2022, order did not address Appellants’ September 3, 2020,

instrument purporting to change the situs to California nor did it address the 

September 18, 2020, filing in California. See Orphans’ Court Order, 1/11/22. 

Neither did Appellants’ brief to this Court address the September 2020 

documents in that appeal. It is obvious from the record that the January 11, 

2022, order did not address the September 3, 2020, instrument nor the 

September 18, 2020, filing of that instrument in California. The prior appeal 

addressed a particular claim, whether Attorney Geer was trustee. See Rosen, 

549 A.2d at 564; In re Dille Family Trust, 2023 WL 6121850, unpublished 

memorandum (Pa. Super. filed September 19, 2023). The orphans’ court 
J-A06027-24

- 19 -

correctly held that it could continue to address this matter, along with other 

issues, that were not being raised on appeal with this Court at that time. The 

proceeding could, and did, continue without any prejudice to Appellants’ 

rights. See Rosen, 549 A.2d at 564. As such, we find that this issue does not 

merit relief.

We commend the Lawrence County Orphans' Court for its careful and 

conscientious consideration of the issues herein, despite the protracted and 

somewhat convoluted procedural history. The Order dated December 6, 2022, 

finding that the situs of the Dille Family Trust has been and remains in 

Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, is affirmed.

5/16/2024