J

- S45031

- 20

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

Appellant

v.

THE ESTATE OF: JULIA M. SHERLOCK, EXECUTOR: KEVIN SHERLOCK : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 578 EDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered January 31, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans’ Court at No(s): No. 1518

- 0854 BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2020 Joan Sherlock (Appellant) appeals pro se 1 from the order granting the petition of her brother, Kevin Sherlock (Executor) , to evict her from property owned by the e state of her mother, Julia M. Sherlock (Decedent). We affirm. The property at issue is 23 Lochwood Lane (the Property) , a two
- story, four

- bedroom, single

- family home

. Decedent owned and resided at the Property until her death on April 15, 2018. Decedent had five children , three of whom are relevant to this appeal : Appellant, Executor, and their disabled brother, Andrew Sherlock (Andrew ) . At the time of Decedent’s death, Appellant and Andrew resided at the Property with Decedent. Appellant

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Appellant has been pro se throughout the Orphans’ Court and appellate proceedings.J

- S45031

- 20

- 2

-

moved into the Property approximately 10 years prior to Decedent’s death

. A ndrew , who is p araplegic and unable to live independently , had lived there for approximately 15 years

. Decedent left her entire estate in trust for And r ew’s benefit

. 2 Her will appointed Executor as trustee as well as e xecutor

. O n May 1, 2018, Ex ecutor determined that it would be in Andrew’s best interest s to sell the P roperty and use the proceeds for Andrew to live in assisted

- living more suitable to hi s needs. Executor repeatedly asked Appellant to vacate the Property so he could sell it , but s he refused. On November 27, 2019, Executor filed a petition seeking leave to evict Appellant from the Property. On January 29, 2020, t he Orphans’ Court convened a hearing. When Executor moved to have the Last Will and Testament of Decedent entered into evidence, Appellant objected. After t he Orphans ’ Court noted that the will was already “ a matter of record, ” Appellant stated she would stipulate to the will being a matter o f record, and the Orphans’ Court admitted it as Exhibit P

- 1. N.T., 1/29/20, at 39

- 40

. Three witnesses testified: Executor ; Michael White, a licensed realtor retained by Executor to list the Property; and Appellant. Appellant testified,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 The Orphans’ Court found that Decedent established “a typical special needs trust which is intended to allow the disabled beneficiary to enjoy the use of property held in trust for his benefit while at the same time allowing him to receive governmental benefits to which he is entitled.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 1/31/20, at 5.J

- S45031

- 20

- 3

-

“I think the hous e should be sold,” and “ I think [And]rew needs to go into a nursing care facility .” Id. at 101. However, Appellant defend ed her refusal
to vacate th e Property , claiming that E xecutor’s plan to sell the Property and move Andrew t o assisted

- living was inco nsistent with Decedent’s wishes, and
Executo r lacked authority to evict her. Id. at 112

- 114 ( Appellant stating “it is still my position that this will is a total fraud [and] my agreement with my mother was that I would stay in the house until everything w ith [And]rew was resolved.” ). On January 31, 2020, t he Orphans’ C ourt granted Executor’s petition and ordered Appellant to move within 45 days

. Appellant timely appealed

. Both the Orphans’ Court and Appellant have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. On June 18, 2020, Executor filed in this Court an application to quash this appeal based on deficiencies in Appellant’s brief . On June 24, 2020, Appe llant filed an answer to the application to quash, which did not address the deficiencies , and stated , “I t is denied that any relief is warranted or the Application to Quash Appeal is valid

. ” Answer to Application to Quash, 6/24/20, ¶ 1. On July 29, 2020 , this Court deni ed the application to quash without prejudice to Executor to raise the issue before the merits panel

. Executor has renewed his argument, detail ing the deficiencies and cit ing prevailing legal authority. See Appellee ’s Brief at 6

- 14. In his summary of the argument, Executor states:J

- S45031

- 20

- 4

- [Appellant] ’s brief does not conform with a single r equirement of Pa.R.A.P. 2111, and she did not file a reproduced record as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2152. She also did not raise any issues in the lower court as required by Pa.R.A.P. 302, which acts as a waiver of all issues. Thes e substantial defects precluded meaningful review, which warrant suppression of [Appellant] ’ s brief and dismissal of the Appeal. Id. at 6. For the mo st part, we agree with Executor. However, we note that in response to the Orphans’ Court’s order directing her to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, Appellant timely filed a response stat ing her “ reasons to appeal,” which the Orph ans’ Court deemed a “Concise Statement of Matters Complained Of , ” and to which the Orphans’ Court responded in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 4/22/20. Thus, we do not agree with Executor that Appellant did not raise any issues w ith the lower court and failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 302. Also, while Appellant has technically failed to include in her brief a statement of questions involved as prescribed by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4), she identifies “issues” of “due process,” “proper con sideration of facts or evidence,” “errors in procedure,” “lack of sufficient evidence,” and “errors in the judge’s interpretation of the law and ‘Will’ of deceased.” Appellant’s Brief at 2

- 6. These issues mirror the reasons for appeal Appellant raised in her filing in response to the Orphans’ Court order directing a concise statement.J

- S45031

- 20

- 5

-

The above notwithstanding, we agree with Executor ’s assessment of Appellant’s brief

. 3 M ost significantl y, Appellant has fail ed to present a cogent legal argument

. Although Appellant intersperses her argument with some legal terms and authority, the references are either overly general or inapplicable. See Appellant’s Brief at 1

- 8; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring appellant develop an argument with citation to and analysis of pertinent authority). Rather than present a legal argument, Appellant reargues he r case . For instance, s he asserts the Orphans’ Court improperly failed to find that Executor was motivated by a desire to “not deal with” Andrew , and “wanted to retaliate against [Appellant] for not going along with his schemes and negative decisions surrounding his [ sic ] Will/Trust and the care for [Appellant], [And]rew, and the house.” Appellant’s Brief at 2. She also asserts that Executor “removed [Decede nt’s] Will from the house ,” and Decedent “ was forced to sign another Will/Trust unknowingly

. ” Id. at 3, 7. This court is not a finder of fact. When we review a decision of the orphans ’ court : The findings of a judge of the orphans ’ court division, sitting without a jury, must be accorded the same weight and effect as the verdict of a jury, and will not be reversed by an appellate court in the absence of an abuse of discretion or a lack of evidentiary support. This rule is particularly app licable to findings of fact which are predicated upon the credibility of the witnesses, whom the

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 For example , Appellant fails to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), which prescribes the 12 “separate and distinct” sections of an appellate brief.J

- S45031

- 20

- 6

-

judge has had the opportunity to hear and observe, and upon the w eight given to their testimony. In re Estate of Cherwinski , 856 A.2d 165, 167 (Pa. Super. 2004 ) (citation omitted). Appellant reargues the facts, and makes no legal argument. We have long held that it is no t our obligation to formulate a rguments on behalf of an appellant. Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co. , 932 A.2d 78, 93 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“ This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. ”); s ee also Commonwealth v. Johnson , 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) ( “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived”). Finally , Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the ap pellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing. Wilkins v. Marsico , 903 A.2d 1281, 1284

- 85 (Pa. Super. 2006) ( citations omitted ). For the above reasons, no relief is due. Order affirmed.J

- S45031

- 20

- 7

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/13/20