J-S10001-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: LAWRENCE F. WALKER

APPEAL OF: LAWRENCE L. WALKER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1141 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered July 27, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): Case No. 32-17-0376

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: May 15, 2024

Appellant, Lawrence L. Walker, appeals from the July 27, 2023 order 

entered in the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Indiana County. We vacate and remand. 

From July 21, 2017 through September 14, 2017, Appellant served as

emergency guardian for the estate of Lawrence F. Walker (“Walker”), his 

father and an alleged incapacitated person. On October 6, 2017, Walker died. 

Thereafter, Appellee, Lois Shawnmarie Allen, Walker’s daughter, was 

appointed Executrix of Walker’s estate. On November 28, 2017, Appellant 

was ordered to file an inventory and formal accounting of all income received, 

and expenses paid, on behalf of Walker during the period of Appellant’s 

guardianship.

1

 Appellant timely complied. On March 1, 2018, Appellee filed 

____________________________________________

1 We shall refer to the inventory and summary of income and expenses 

prepared by Appellant as the “Account” or the “Accounting Report.”
J-S10001-24

- 2 -

objections to the Account. A hearing on Appellee’s objections was ultimately 

held on January 25, 2023 before appointed auditor Anthony S. Sottile, III (the 

“Auditor”). The Auditor filed his report with the court on June 15, 2023, but 

the record does not establish that he provided notice of the report to the 

parties. On July 27, 2023, the orphans’ court issued an order adopting the 

Auditor’s report and ordering that Appellant be surcharged to return

$64,021.49 to Walker’s estate. This timely appeal followed. 

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: 

Was the proper procedure followed in this case, given that there 

was no notice of the filing of the Auditor’s report or the need to 

take exceptions to the same?

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

Our standard and scope of review over Appellant's claim is as follows:

Our scope of review in this appeal from an [o]rphan[s’ c]ourt 

decree is limited. We will not disturb the trial court's findings 

absent a manifest error; we may modify the decree only if the 

findings upon which the decree rests are unsupported by the 

evidence or if there has been an error of law, an abuse of 

discretion or a capricious disbelief of competent evidence.

In re Estate of Yorty, 761 A.2d 187, 188 (Pa. Super. 2000), quoting In re 

Estate of McCutcheon, 699 A.2d 746, 749 (Pa. Super. 1997). 

The Orphans’ Court Rules govern the present analysis. In particular, 

Orphans’ Court Rule 9.6 states: 

An auditor or hearing officer shall give notice of the filing of the 

report or of the intention to file the report in such manner and 

to such parties as local rules shall prescribe.
J-S10001-24

- 3 -

Pa.O.C. Rule 9.6. Additionally, Orphans’ Court Rule 9.7, in relevant part, 

provides: 

(a) The report of an auditor shall be confirmed in such manner 

as local rules shall prescribe.

Pa.O.C. Rule 9.7(a). 

In this instance, it is undisputed that the Auditor failed to provide notice 

of the filing of his report in contravention to Rule 9.6. While it does appear 

that Indiana County Orphans’ Court presently has in place no relevant local 

rule prescribing how the Auditor must provide notice, this circumstance does 

not alter the fact that Rule 9.6 specifically mandates that notice must be given. 

We therefore conclude that the orphans’ court erred in adopting the Auditor’s 

June 15, 2023 report in the absence of notice to the parties that would afford 

them a reasonable opportunity to register any objections. Accordingly, we 

vacate the orphans’ court’s order and remand the instant matter to permit 

Appellant, if he so desires, to file exceptions to the Auditor’s June 15, 2023 

report.2

____________________________________________

2 Appellee points out that Indiana County Orphans’ Court “does not have in 

place any valid local rule regarding the procedure for confirming an auditor’s 

report” and, as such, “there is no required procedure for the filing of 

exceptions or objections to an auditor’s report.” Appellee’s Brief at 6-7. Our 

review of Indiana County Orphans’ Court’s Local Rules confirms Appellee’s 

assertion. It is well-settled, however, that “[n]o pleading or other legal paper 

shall be refused for filing based upon a requirement of a local rule.” Pa.R.J.A. 

No. 103(d)(8). Hence, the absence of a local rule that prescribes the method 

by which a party may file exceptions to an Auditor’s report does not, in and of 

itself, preclude a party from doing so. Moreover, in its 1925(a) opinion, the 

trial court clearly contemplated that Appellant would file exceptions to the 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S10001-24

- 4 -

Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 5/15/2024

____________________________________________

Auditor’s report. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/21/23, at 2 (stating that 

Appellant’s “failure to file exceptions for the [c]ourt’s consideration” made it 

impossible for it “to provide further support for the entry of the [o]rder dated 

July 27, 2023”). In light of the foregoing, as well as the Auditor’s clear failure 

to abide by Rule 9.6, it is appropriate that we remand the instant matter to 

ensure the Auditor’s report is properly confirmed.