NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-1041

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN S. PALYS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The appellant Linda Collier appeals from a decree and order 

for complete settlement dated July 5, 2023, regarding the estate 

of her cousin, John S. Palys. John Palys died on December 13, 

2019, and the decree and order in question essentially decided 

two things -- (1) it admitted John Palys’s will to formal 

probate, and (2) it determined John Palys’s heirs at law.

The instant appeal of Linda Collier is without merit, 

because Linda Collier did not file the required affidavit of 

objections. The July 5, 2023 order at issue resulted from a 

petition by the estate’s personal representative that sought a 

determination of testacy, a determination of heirs at law, and 

the allowance of the will of John Palys. The Probate and Family 

Court issued a citation with a return date of May 9, 2022. 

Linda Collier filed a timely appearance and objection to the 

petition, but she did not file an affidavit of objections within 

thirty days of May 9 (or at any time), as required by G. L. 
2

c. 190B, § 1-401 (e). A Probate and Family Court judge 

accordingly struck her objection prior to entering the July 5, 

2023 decree and order for complete settlement.

On appeal, Linda Collier does not argue that she filed an 

affidavit of objections, and similarly does not argue that the 

judge erred in striking her objection. As there was no error in 

striking Linda Collier’s objection, she cannot provide a basis 

on which the July 5, 2023 order could be vacated or reversed.1

The personal representative requests appellate attorney’s 

fees pursuant to Mass. R. App. P. 25, as appearing in 481 Mass. 

1654 (2019), for having to respond to this appeal, which he 

argues is frivolous. An appeal is "frivolous . . . where there 

can be no reasonable expectation of a reversal under wellsettled law." Dacey v. Burgess, 491 Mass. 311, 319 (2023). We 

agree that the appeal is frivolous but note that the personal

representative included some unnecessary arguments in his brief. 

Accordingly, we caution counsel to exercise restraint in the 

amount requested. The estate shall file with this court and 

serve on the appellant a submission detailing and supporting the 

amount of its attorney's fees and costs incurred on appeal, in 

1 The appellant's brief addresses many other issues, many 

irrelevant to this appeal, but it does not address the threshold 

question of whether Linda Collier's objection was properly 

stricken. We accordingly need not reach any of the other issues 

referenced in the brief.
3

accordance with the procedure described in Fabre v. Walton, 441 

Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004).2

Decree and order for complete 

settlement entered July 5, 

2023, affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin, 

Englander & D’Angelo, JJ.3),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: April 26, 2024.

2 The estate shall file their submission within fourteen 

days of the issuance of the rescript in this case. The 

appellant will have fourteen days thereafter to file a response.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.