IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James D. Schneller, :

: No. 1901 C.D. 2014

Appellant : Submitted: May 22, 2015

:

v. :

: Clerk of Orphans ’ Court of : Chester County, Orphans :

Court Division of the Chester : County Court of Common Pleas, : Chester County Register of Wills :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

PER CURIAM

MEMORANDUM OPINION FILED: August 5, 2015

James D. Schneller appeals

, pro se

, from the order of the Court of

Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) filed February 27, 2014, grant ing the

motion for summary judgment filed by the Clerk of Orphans ’ Court of Chester

County, the Orphans ’ Court Division of the Cheste r County Court of Common Pleas,

and the Chester County Register of Wills (collectively

, Orphans ’ C ourt) and

dismiss ing Schneller’s petition

. We affirm the trial court’s order and deny

Schneller’s motion to strike the Orphans’ Court’s brief

.

Schneller is an heir and beneficiary of trusts f rom his deceased parents

.

Estates were raised for both parents and completed per status reports filed February 4,

2005. On June 4, 2009, Schneller filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

and, allegedly, a petition for appoint ment as administrator of the estates. O n June 10,2

2009, the trial court issued an order den ying the application to proceed in forma

pauperis and direct ing that the clerk of the O rphans ’ C ourt not accept further filings

or any documents attempting to re

- open the estates. Schneller appealed to the

Superior Court, which affirmed. The Superior Court determined that Schneller failed

to file the petition for appointment as administrator and, as such, the application to

proceed in forma paup eris was improperly filed pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(c).

On December 30, 2010, Schneller again appeal ed the June 10, 2009,

order and the orders dated April 9, 2010, 1 and December 1, 2010

, 2 to the Superior

Court. The Orphans’ C ourt filed a motion to quash, which t he Superior Court granted

on May 11, 2011. Schneller did not appeal further.

On April 9, 2011, Schneller filed with the Orphans’ C ourt an affidavit

stating that on June 4, 2009, he mailed the petition for appoint ment as administrator

in the same parcel as the application to proceed in forma pauperis . On August 2,

2011, Schneller requested the Clerk of the Orphans ’ C ourt “to accept the original

copy of , and to docket, the petition pro tem” to be appointed administrato r of the

estates

. (Pet. for Writ of Mandamus, 10/11/12, ¶ 28, at 6.)

1 On April 9, 2010, the Orphans’ C ourt dismissed Schneller’s December 21, 2009, petition

for review of the schedule of distribution and accounts in the estates in conformity with the June 10,

2009, order

.

2 On December 1, 2010, the Orphans’ C ourt reaffirmed the April 9, 2010, order and declined

to direc t the Orphans’ C ourt to enter Schneller’s alleged petition for appointment as administrator

because there wa s no evidence that the petition was ever filed in June 2009.3

On October 11, 2012, Schneller filed a petition for writ of mandamus

and an application to proceed in forma pauperis

. The Orphans’ Court held a hearing

on November 1, 2012, regarding the application to proceed in forma pauperis

, at

which Schneller failed to appear. On November 2 , 2012, the Orphans ’ C ourt denied

Schneller ’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because Schneller was receiving

support and income and was not impoverished. (Orphans ’ Ct. Op., 11/ 2 /12, at 1 .)

In Schneller’s October 11, 2012, petition for writ of mandamus, 3 he

ask ed for a court order compel ling the clerk of the O rphans ’ C ourt to accept the filing

of an application for re hearing regarding his parents’ estates. The Orphans ’ C ourt

moved for summary judgment based on the June 2009 court order. The trial court

granted the motion for summary judgment. Schneller appealed to the Superior Court,

which transferred the matter to this court. 4

3 “A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy designed to compel official performan ce

of a ministerial act or mandatory duty.” Bailey v. Wakefield , 933 A.2d 1081, 1083 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2007). “In order to obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right

in the petition; (2) a corresponding duty in the r espondent; and (3) the absence of any other

appropriate or adequate remedy.” Id.

4 Our review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment is limited to determining

whether the trial court committed an error of law or manifestly abused its discretion. Jones v.

Clearfield Area School District , 578 A.2d 612 , 613 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). “[ S ] ummary judgment is

properly granted only where

. . . there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Id. We note that this court has appellate jurisdiction

pursuant to Brown v. Levy , 73 A.3d 514 , 519 (Pa. 2013) (recognizing the prothonotary as a

Commonwealth government officer); and In re Administrative Order No. 1

- MD

- 2003 , 936 A.2d 1

, 5

- 7 (Pa. 2007) (recognizing that this court and the common pleas court had concurrent original

jurisdiction over the county clerk’s exceptions and, since the action was initiated in the common

pleas court, this court properly exercised appellate jurisdiction)

.4

Before our court, Schneller contends that the trial court erred and abused

its discretion in granting the Orphans ’ C ourt’s motion for summary judgment.

Schneller also contends that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying

his request to proceed in forma pauperis

.

Here, the trial court issued the June 10, 2009, order prohibiting the

Orphans ’ C ourt from accepting further filings. The Superior Court affirmed the June

10, 2009, order. Because the estates have been closed since 2005, and the trial court

has ordered they not be re

- opened, the trial court properly grant ed the Orphans’

C ourt’s motion for summary judgment. 5

Schneller also filed a motion to strike the Orphans’ Court’s brief with

this court

. Schneller argues that the Orphans’ Court’s brief fails to conform with the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure because the argument section is

diminutive, addresses only a single issue, and fails to answer the arguments set forth

by Schneller. We r ecognize the defects in the Orphans’ Court’s brief but are able to

conduct a meaningful appellate review. See Arnold v. Workers’ Compensation

Appeal Board (Lacour Painting, Inc.) , 110 A.3d 1063, 1067 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).

Thus, we deny this motion.

5 The tr ial court’s denial of Schneller’s application to proceed in forma pauperis i s

supported by substantial evidence of record and, thus, proper.5

Acco rdingly, we affirm the trial court’s order and deny Schneller’s

motion to strike the Orphans’ Court’s brief

.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James D. Schneller, :

: No. 1901 C.D. 2014

Appellant :

:

v. :

: Clerk of Orphans ’ Court of : Chester County, Orphans :

Court Division of the Chester : County Court of Common Pleas, : Chester County Register of Wills :

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5 th day of August , 201 5

, we hereby affirm the order of

the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County filed February 27, 2014 , and deny

James D. Schneller’s motion to strike the brief of the Clerk of Orphans’ Court of

Chester County, the Orphans’ Court Divisi on of the Chester County Court of

Common Pleas, and the Chester County Register of Wills.