J-A16021-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF HELEN HARPER

APPEAL OF: ROBERT J. HARPER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2307 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Adjudication Entered October 18, 2021

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

No(s): 0597-2015

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED JULY 19, 2022

Robert J. Harper (Appellant) appeals, pro se, from the October 18, 2021, 

adjudication1 of the sur first and final account of the Estate of Helen B. Harper, 

deceased (Estate), filed by Appellee, Daniel B. Evans, Esquire (Administrator). 

Appellant and his brother, Charles B. Harper, III, are Decedent’s children and 

beneficiaries of the Estate. Appellant claims that his due process rights were 

violated because he was not provided with proper notice of the continuation 

of the audit of the Estate. Appellant also asserts the Orphans’ Court erred 

when it denied him the opportunity to bring his objections to the audit of the 

Estate. Based on the following, we affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 See Pa.O.C.R. 2.9.
J-A16021-22

- 2 -

The Orphans’ Court set forth the underlying facts and procedural history 

as follows:

Decedent Helen Harper died testate on November 11, 2017. 

Letters of Administration were granted to the Administrator on 

August 13, 2018. Decedent’s Will dated December 15, 1998 left 

her entire estate to her Revocable Trust also dated December 15, 

1998. Decedent’s husband, Charles B. Harper, Jr., predeceased 

her. Under the circumstances that existed at Decedent’s death, 

the only applicable directions for distribution are found in Article 

TWELVE of Decedent’s Will, which directs that the remaining trust 

property be divided into equal shares for Decedent’s children. 

Decedent’s children are Appellee Charles B. Harper, III and 

[Appellant].

On June 24, 2021, the Administrator filed the First and Final 

Account. The Administrator averred that all parties in interest are 

living and of age and that they received notice of the filing of the 

Account, the Statement of Proposed Distribution, and the time and 

place of the Audit. The Administrator further averred that the 

inheritance tax due to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was 

paid and that there were no unpaid claims against the Estate with 

the exception of [Appellant]’s claim. The Administrator further 

averred that on November 25, 2015, Decedent was adjudicated 

as an incapacitated person by the Orphans’ Court under Docket 

Number 597-2015. The Orphans’ Court appointed [Jacquelyn]

Goffney, Esquire[,] and [Appellant] as Decedent’s Plenary CoGuardians of her Person. The Orphans’ Court appointed Jacquelyn

Goffney, Esquire and Dana Breslin, Esquire as Decedent’s Plenary 

Co-Guardians of her Estate.

In the First and Final Account, the Administrator addressed 

several claims made by [Appellant] and sought adjudication of 

those claims. [Appellant]’s claims are as follows: (1) whether 

[Appellant] is entitled to $385,000 from the Estate, which 

represents the 11 years at $35,000 that he took care of Decedent 

and his father and their respective properties; (2) whether 

[Appellant] is entitled to an unspecified interest in the proceeds of 

the sale of 608 North Swarthmore Avenue, Ridley Park, 

Pennsylvania; (3) whether the Administrator should be allowed to 

purchase from the Estate for a total value of $240.00 a set of six 

wooden chairs manufactured by J.B. Van Sciver Co. in the 1970s; 

(4) whether the payment of the Decedent’s American Express 
J-A16021-22

- 3 -

Card debt of $12,083.88 be considered to be a distribution to 

[Appellant] from his share of the Estate; (5) whether [Appellant] 

should be charged with the legal fees and costs of the ejectment 

action filed on February 26, 2020 that was brought against him by 

the Administrator when he failed to vacate Decedent’s property 

on 9 W. DuPont Street, Ridley Park, Pennsylvania that was paid 

by the Estate for periods until [Appellant] vacated the property on 

or about October 7, 2020; (6) whether [Appellant] should be 

charged with rent for the 9 W. DuPont Street Property that was 

paid by the Estate for periods until [Appellant] vacated the 

property on or about October 7, 2020; and (7) whether 

[Appellant] should be charged with interest for the delay in the 

sale of 9 W. DuPont Street property.

On July 21, 2021, the following parties appeared before the 

Orphans’ Court for the Audit of the First and Final Account: the 

Administrator, [Appellant], and Elizabeth Stefanide, Esquire, 

Counsel for Charles B. Harper, III. Ms. Stefanide stated that she 

received the Account; however, wanted more time to file a 

response. Ms. Stefanide further stated that the matter did not 

need to [be] put onto the next scheduled Audit List, but rather, 

could be presented to the assigned Hearing Officer/Master for 

review and recommendation to the Orphans’ Court. The Orphans’ 

Court concurred.

[Appellant] stated that he had objections to the Account; 

but had not yet filed his written objections with the Orphans’ 

Court. Although an objector has only ten days to file written 

objections with the Orphans’ Court under Delaware County Local 

Orphans’ Court Rule 2.7(A), [Appellant] asked for additional time 

to file those written objections, specifically [60] days. Neither the 

Administrator nor Ms. Stefanide objected if the Orphans’ Court 

gave [Appellant] an additional [30] days to file any written 

response to the Account. The Orphans’ Court gave [Appellant 30] 

days to file his written objections to the Account. In addition, the 

Orphans’ Court gave Ms. Stefanide [30] days to file any written 

response to the Account.

On September 8, 2021, [Appellant] filed his written 

objections to the Account, which was [48] days after the July 21, 

2021 Audit. On September 15, 2021, [Appellant] appeared at the 

September 15, 2021 Audit even though this matter was not 

scheduled on the September 15th Audit List. Hearing 

Officer/Master William Halligan, Esquire presided at the 
J-A16021-22

- 4 -

September 15, 2021 Audit List. [Appellant] stated that the 

Orphans’ Court granted him a [30] day continuance and that this 

matter was to be heard on the September 15, 2021 Audit List. 

Hearing Officer/Master Halligan stated that there was no indication 

that the Orphans’ Court continued this matter to the September 

15th Audit List, but rather, it appeared that the Orphans’ Court 

gave him [30] days to file his written objections to the Audit. 

At the September 15th Audit List, [Appellant] admitted that 

he filed the written objections to the Audit beyond the [30] day 

time period. Hearing Officer/Master Halligan informed [Appellant] 

that the Orphans’ Court would need to decide whether to accept 

his written objections filed beyond the [30]-day time period. 

Hearing Officer/Master Halligan explained again that this matter 

was not scheduled for the September 15, 2021 Audit List.

On October 18, 2021, the Orphans’ Court entered the 

Adjudication of the First and Final Account in this matter. In 

addition, the Orphans’ Court dismissed [Appellant]’s Objections as 

untimely because they were filed beyond the [30]-day period 

provided. The Objections were due on August 20, 2021 and were 

not filed until September 8, 2021, [19] days later.

As to [Appellant]’s claims, the Orphans’ Court denied the 

claim for $385,000 for caring for Decedent, his father, and their 

properties, and as to his alleged interest in proceeds from the 

North Swarthmore Avenue Property. The Orphans’ Court 

approved the Administrator’s purchase of the six wooden chairs 

from the Estate. As to the Decedent’s American Express Credit 

Card Debt, the Orphans’ Court determined that while the Estate 

was contractually liable for the debt and could not refuse payment, 

it was a debt that [Appellant] should be primarily liable and not 

the [E]state because the charges appeared to be entirely for 

[Appellant]’s benefit, not Decedent’s, and therefore, [Appellant]’s 

distribution should be reduced by $12,083.88 to pay the 

outstanding debt.

As to the legal fees and costs of the ejectment action filed 

against [Appellant] when he failed to vacate the 9 W. DuPont 

Street Property, the Orphans’ Court ordered that [Appellant] shall 

pay $2,303 to the Estate for said fees and costs. As to the charge 

of interest for the delay of the sale of the 9 W. DuPont Street 

Property caused by [Appellant]’s failure to vacate timely, the 

Orphans’ Court agreed with the Administrator that the short term 
J-A16021-22

- 5 -

federal interest rate was the appropriate measure of damages and 

ordered that $4,064.66 be withheld from distribution to 

[Appellant] and paid back to the Estate. As to these payments 

made to the Estate, [Appellant] is a 1/2 beneficiary and will 

receive 1/2 of anything he pays to the Estate.

In the Adjudication, the Orphans’ Court ordered that

[i]n conformance with the Statement of Proposed 

Distribution and in conformance with such distribution as 

may have heretofore properly been made and in 

conformance with the adjustments to the distributions to 

[Appellant] as set forth in this adjudication there is awarded 

unto: Charles B. Harper, III ─ one-half (1/2) the balance of 

principal and income and to [Appellant] ─ one-half (1/2) the 

balance of principal and income.

Orphans’ Ct. Op., 2/1/22, at 1-6 (record citations omitted). This timely pro 

se appeal followed.2

Appellant raises the following two issues on appeal:

1. Is [Appellant] entitled to due process of proper notice of the 

continuation of the audit of the [E]state[?]

2. Did the trial court err when, based on error of law, [A]ppellant 

was denied the opportunity to bring his objections to the audit of 

the [E]state[?]

____________________________________________

2 On November 15, 2021, the Orphans’ Court ordered Appellant to file a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

Appellant timely complied with the court’s order on December 3, 2021. The 

court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on February 1, 2022.

Notably, Appellant’s concise statement contained nine issues. See

Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, 12/3/21, at 1-3 

(unpaginated). But on appeal, he has abandoned eight of those claims. 

Accordingly, we need not address those issues. See Commonwealth v.

Briggs, 12 A.3d 291, 310 n.19 (Pa. 2011 (declining to address claim raised 

with trial court in concise statement but subsequently abandoned in brief).
J-A16021-22

- 6 -

Appellant’s Brief at 3. Based on the nature of his claims, we will address them 

together. 

Appellant first contends the Orphans’ Court erred by failing to provide 

proper notice of the continued audit of the Estate as required by Orphans’ 

Court Rule 2.5(e). See Appellant’s Brief at 6. He states that when the first 

and final audit and accounting were called in July 2021, he requested a 60-

day continuance but was granted a 30-day continuance by the court. See id. 

He alleges that after he filed his objections on September 8, 2021, he never 

received notice by the court of the next audit, which resulted in a due process 

violation. See id. at 6-9. Appellant asserts:

In requesting a continuance, [he] only had knowledge, at 

that time, of one action, the audit and had no knowledge of 

being able to request a continuance of filing objections. 

Nowhere in the record does [Appellant] request a 

continuance for filing objections. This was an element of 

confusion. [He] was referring to the audit and the court and Ms. 

Stefanide were referring to the objections. Ms. Stefanide speaks 

of a response . . . but [he] received none. Delaware County calls 

an audit every month, except August. The next audit was 

September 15, 202[1,] which [he] appeared at but learned that 

the Estate . . . was not on the list. . . .

After [A]ppellant requested a continuance of what he 

thought was the Audit and without receiving proper notice by the 

court [A]pellant filed his objections on September 8, 2021 before 

the next audit date of September 15, 2021. Had the court issued 

proper notice there would have been no confusion and 

[A]ppellant’s [d]ue [p]rocess rights would have been preserved 

and protected.

Id. at 9-10 (emphasis added).
J-A16021-22

- 7 -

In Appellant’s second issue, he resumes his prior claim that the Orphans’ 

Court erred by imposing judgment based upon the error of denying him the 

opportunity to be heard. See Appellant’s Brief at 10. He states, “Without 

being able to voice his objections and the [Orphans’ C]ourt adjudicating based 

upon an error of law of failure to act and provide proper notice[,] the 

accountant[’]s pleadings were accepted by the court. The deficiencies of the 

accountant’s actions were never fully revealed to the court.” Id. at 10-11. 

Appellant concludes the court “violated” his due process rights “in confirming 

any [and] all of the accountant[’]s claims after committing [an] error of law.” 

Id. at 11.

Our standard of review of the findings of an [O]rphans’

[C]ourt is deferential.

When reviewing a decree entered by the Orphans’ 

Court, this Court 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.

[T]he Orphans’ [C]ourt decision will not be reversed unless

there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in

applying the correct principles of law.

In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206-07 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations

and quotation marks omitted). We note that “[a]n abuse of discretion is not

merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides
J-A16021-22

- 8 -

or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be

either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or

ill will, discretion has been abused.” Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284, 291

(Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) (citation omitted). “Our scope of review is also

limited: we determine only whether the court’s findings are based on

competent and credible evidence of record.” In re Estate of Karschner, 919

A.2d 252, 256 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

Rule 2.5 addresses an accountant’s duty to provide notice of filing an 

account, in pertinent part, as follows:

Rule 2.5. Notice of Account Filing

(a) No Account shall be confirmed or statement of proposed 

distribution approved unless the accountant has given written 

notice of the filing of the Account as provided in subparagraph (d) 

of this Rule to the following, as applicable:

* * *

(3) any other individual or entity known to the accountant to have 

or claim an interest in the estate . . . as a beneficiary . . .; [and]

* * *

(d) Written notice, as provided in subparagraph (a) of this Rule, 

shall be mailed at least 20 days prior to the audit in those 

counties having a separate Orphans' Court Division or 20 days 

prior to the date by which objections must be filed in all other 

counties, and the written notice shall state the date of the audit 

or the date by which objections must be filed, and the time and 

place of the audit, if one is to be held, to the extent then known. 

A party residing outside of the United States shall have 60 days, 

rather than 20 days, within which to file an objection. If an audit 

is to be held and the date, time, and place of the audit is not 

known at the time the notice is mailed, the notice shall state that 

the date, time, and place of the audit will be provided upon 
J-A16021-22

- 9 -

request. A copy of the Account, petition for 

adjudication/statement of proposed distribution, and any legal 

paper filed therewith shall be sent with the notice, unless the 

recipient of the notice is a trust beneficiary who is not a “qualified 

beneficiary” as defined in 20 Pa.C.S. § 7703, or unless the court 

orders otherwise in a particular matter.

(e) If the audit of an Account is continued or the date for 

filing written objections is extended, additional notice shall 

be mailed at least 20 days prior to the date of the continued 

audit or the new date for filing written objections to all of 

those who initially received notice of the Account’s filing. 

The additional notice shall state the date of the continued audit or 

the date by which objections must be filed, and the time and place 

of the continued audit, if one is to be held, to the extent then 

known. If the time and place of the continued audit is not known 

at the time the additional notice is mailed, the additional notice 

shall state that the time and place of the continued audit will be 

provided upon request.

Pa.O.C.R. 2.5(a)(3), (d), (e) (emphasis added). As for objections, Pa.O.C.R.

2.7 provides, in relevant part:

(a) Objections to an Account and/or a petition for 

adjudication/statement of proposed distribution shall be filed with 

the clerk on or before the time and date of the audit in those 

counties holding an audit, and by a specified date in all other 

counties, with a copy served on the accountant or the accountant's 

counsel, if represented, and to each interested party and claimant 

who received the notice pursuant to Rule 2.5, to the extent known, 

pursuant to Rule 4.3.

(b) Objections shall be in writing . . . .

* * *

(d) The court may extend the time for filing objections.

Pa.O.C. Rule 2.7(a), (b), (d).

Moreover, because Appellant complains that he was denied proper 

notice, we note the following. “Lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard
J-A16021-22

- 10 -

constitutes a violation of due process of law and results in an invalid

judgment.” Shay v. Flight C Helicopter Servs., 822 A.2d 1, 11 (Pa. Super.

2003). See also In re Galli’s Estate, 17 A.2d 899, 903 (Pa. 1941) (“[N]otice

was indispensably necessary to give jurisdiction, and, without such notice and

an opportunity to appellant to be heard, the decrees of the court were

absolutely void.”) (citation omitted).

A review of the record reveals that at the July 21, 2021, audit list, the

following discussion took place between the parties and the Orphans’ Court:

THE COURT: Okay. And are there objections to the accounting?

[MS. STEFANIDE]: Your Honor, I was just letting [Administrator]

know that I have received the accounting, I have prepared a 

response to the accounting, I needed a little more time to file that 

response. I do not know that we see major issues from our 

perspective, but we will get something filed of record.

THE COURT: Do you want to come back on another audit list or 

do you want me to send it on?

[MS. STEFANIDE]: I think we should send it on Your Honor, and 

I would get that filed and sent to [Administrator].

THE COURT: And you will notify all the parties?

[MS. STEFANIDE]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

[MS. STEFANIDE]: Yes, Your Honor.

[ADMINISTRATOR]: What do you mean – I am sorry, Your Honor, 

what do you mean by send it on?

THE COURT: So it goes to the Master next and they review it.

[ADMINISTRATOR]: Oh, okay.
J-A16021-22

- 11 -

* * *

[ADMINISTRATOR]: I am sure [Appellant] has objections 

however.

[APPELLANT]: Your Honor, I am pro se.

THE COURT: So the Master will hear those objections, okay?

[ADMINISTRATOR]: Okay, but they should be filed of record –

THE COURT: Correct.

[ADMINISTRATOR]: ─ within ten days I believe the local board 

says.

THE COURT: Correct, all right.

[APPELLANT]: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes [Appellant]?

[APPELLANT]: I am a pro se litigant. I am not experienced in 

estate litigation. I request a continuance to prepare a response.

THE COURT: So you need more than ten days?

[APPELLANT]: I do.

THE COURT: So Ms. [Stefanide] or [Administrator,] do either of 

you have a problem by giving [Appellant] more than ten days? 

How much more time do you need?

[APPELLANT]: I would like 60, but I will take 30.

[ADMINISTRATOR]: I will not object to 30 days, Your Honor.

[MS. STEFANIDE]: I will not either, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

N.T., 7/21/21, at 3-6.
J-A16021-22

- 12 -

Thereafter, at the September 15, 2021, Audit List, the following took 

place between Hearing Officer/Master Halligan and Appellant:

[Halligan]: Well, what gave you reason to believe your case would 

. . . come up, [Appellant], please. What – why did you think your 

matter was being heard today? It’s not on any list that we have.

[Appellant]: I asked for a continuance. The judge granted a 

continuance. The next audit date was September 15th.

[Halligan]: Well . . . I wasn’t there. I don’t know what happened. 

There’s no indication that the judge continued your case to 

September 15th. She may have continued it generally. It was 

my impression that it was continued for the purpose of you filing 

objections from within 30 days. That’s -- that was what I was 

told.

* * *

[Appellant]: I filed my objections here, Your Honor, . . . but they 

were beyond 30 days.

[Halligan]: Well, that’s going to be a matter for the judge to see 

whether she accepts those objections or not since they were not 

timely filed. . . .

N.T., 9/15/21, at 3-4.

In addressing Appellant’s argument, the orphans’ court opined:

The Orphans’ Court never continued the July 21, 2021 Audit 

in this matter to a subsequent Audit List. As is clearly reflected in 

the Notes of Testimony from the July 21st Audit List, the Orphans’ 

Court gave [Appellant] additional time to file his written

[o]bjections to the [a]ccounting. Under Del.Co.O.C.Rule 2.7A(3), 

“[o]bjections may be made orally at the call of the Audit List, in 

which case the objections shall . . . thereafter be filed in writing 

within 10 days with notice as provided in Pa.O.C. Rule 2.7(a).” 

(emphasis added). The term “shall” is a word of command and 

one which must be given a compulsory meaning: as denoting 

obligation. Black’s Law Dictionary (Revised 4th ed. 1968).

* * *
J-A16021-22

- 13 -

[At the] September 15, 2021 Audit List, [Appellant] 

appeared even though this matter was not on the Audit List. 

Hearing Officer/Master William Halligan, Esquire informed 

[Appellant] that this matter was not on the September 15, 2021 

Audit List and that there was no indication that the Orphans’ Court 

had continued this matter from the July 21, 2021 Audit List to the 

September 15, 2021 Audit List. Hearing Officer Halligan stated 

that it was his impression that the Orphans’ Court provided 

[Appellant 30] days to file his written objections to the Account. 

[Appellant] admitted that he filed his written [o]bjections beyond 

the [30] day time period. Hearing Officer/Master Halligan stated 

that the Orphans’ Court would need to decide whether his written 

[o]bjections were timely filed.

The [r]ecord is clear that the Orphans’ Court gave [30] days 

to [Appellant], instead of the ten days as required by the Delaware 

County Local Orphans’ Court Rules, to file his written [o]bjections. 

At no point did the Orphans’ Court ever state that it continued the 

entire matter to the next scheduled Audit List on September 15, 

2021. Based upon the extended date, [Appellant] had to file his 

written [o]bjections by August 20, 2021. [Appellant] did not file 

his written [o]bjections until September 8, 2021, approximately 

[19] days after the extended date. The Orphans’ Court properly 

dismissed [Appellant]’s written [o]bjections as untimely.

Therefore, [Appellant]’s allegation that the Orphans’ Court 

did not provide additional notice of the continued audit and clarify 

his [c]onstitutional [r]ight to [d]ue [p]rocess as provided under 

231 Pa. Code. Rule 2.5(e) [n]otice of [a]ccount [f]iling is without 

merit because the Orphans’ Court never continued the matter to 

a subsequent Audit List.

Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 9, 11-12 (record citations omitted).

We agree with the analysis provided by the Orphans’ Court. Appellant’s 

arguments ─ that he had no knowledge of being able to request a continuance 

for filing objections, that the record does not reveal him requesting a 

continuance for filing objections, and that there was some confusion because 

he was actually requesting a continuance to the audit ─ are belied by the 
J-A16021-22

- 14 -

record. As noted by the court, at the July 2021 Audit List, the parties and the 

court were discussing the ten-day time period for filing objections when 

Appellant asked for a continuance to prepare a response. See N.T., 7/21/21, 

at 5. The court inquired if Appellant would need more than ten days, to which 

Appellant replied in the affirmative, requesting both a 30-day and 60-day 

continuance. See id. at 5-6. The court provided him with a 30-day extension. 

Id. at 6. Subsequently, at the September 2021 Audit List, Appellant 

acknowledged that he filed his objections in an untimely manner. See N.T., 

9/15/21, at 4. We note that although Appellant was pro se at the time of 

these proceedings, his pro se status did not relieve him of his obligation to 

follow the rules. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 n.11 (Pa. 

Super. 2008); Elliot-Greenleaf, P.C. v. Rothstein, 255 A.3d 539, 542 (Pa. 

Super. 2021) (“As our [S]upreme [C]ourt has explained, any layperson 

choosing to represent [himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some 

reasonable extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal 

training will prove [his] undoing.”) (citation omitted).

While Appellant was provided with an extension from ten days to 30 

days to file objections, the record clearly establishes that a continuance of the 

audit was neither granted, nor even mentioned, at the July 2021 Audit List. 

Therefore, Appellant’s due process rights were not violated for failure to give 

proper notice of the continuance as set forth in Rule 2.5(e). Moreover, 

because Appellant did not file his objections until 19 days after the extension 
J-A16021-22

- 15 -

date provided by the court pursuant to Rule 2.7, we discern no error on the 

part of the Orphans’ Court in dismissing his written objections as untimely 

filed.

Adjudication affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/19/2022