Court Opinion

ID: 9751156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:09:50.94616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:15.265172
License: Public Domain

J-A17012-23

  NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  IN RE: GENEVIEVE BUSH                        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: MARY BUSH                         :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 2657 EDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered September 20, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans' Court at
                             No(s): 1509-1720

BEFORE: KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                          FILED AUGUST 28, 2023

       Mary Bush (Bush) appeals pro se from the September 20, 2022 order of

the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) dismissing as moot

her motion for sanctions and objections to the final accounting of the Estate

of Genevieve Bush (Genevieve). We quash the appeal.

       Briefly, the instant docket concerns a guardianship that was granted

over Genevieve, Bush’s mother, and has been the subject of substantial

litigation by Bush since its initiation. The guardianship was opened in 2011

and continued through Genevieve’s death in June of 2021. The guardians of

Bush’s person and estate filed the required final accountings in early August

of 2021. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(c)(2) (“Within 60 days of the death of the

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17012-23

incapacitated person . . . the guardian shall file a final report with the court.”).

Bush did not file any objections and approximately three months later, on

November 3, 2021, the trial court entered an order terminating the

guardianship. Notwithstanding the termination, Bush filed objections to the

final accountings on December 23, 2021.

      As the trial court explains, at a hearing on September 19, 2022,

regarding Genevieve’s contested will, which was docketed separately, Bush

brought to its attention that pleadings in the instant matter had never been

addressed. Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/22, at 1 n.1. These pleadings were a

motion for sanctions filed on January 8, 2020, and Bush’s objection to the

guardian’s final accounting filed on December 23, 2021. Upon review of the

docket, the trial court discovered that the guardianship had been closed by

final order and dismissed Bush’s two filings as moot. Bush timely appealed

and she and the trial court complied with Pa. R.A.P. 1925.

      In its opinion, the trial court explained that it lacked jurisdiction to

consider the substance of the two pleadings because the guardianship had

been terminated more than 30 days prior. Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/22, at

1-2 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 and related cases).          We agree.      “Except as

otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon notice to the parties

may   modify    or   rescind   any   order   within   30   days   after   its   entry,

notwithstanding the prior termination of any term of court, if no appeal from

such order has been taken or allowed.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. Unless a trial

                                       -2-
J-A17012-23

court expressly grants a motion for reconsideration within the 30-day period,

it loses jurisdiction to modify or rescind the final order. Mfrs. & Traders

Trust Co. v. Greenville Gastroenterology, SC, 108 A.3d 913, 918 (Pa.

Super. 2015).

       Here, the trial court issued an order dismissing the two pleadings as

moot but acknowledged in its opinion pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) that it

lacked jurisdiction to take any action on a case that had been closed by final

order nearly a year prior. “If a court issues an order after statutory time limits

have passed, that order is a legal nullity.” Commonwealth v. Green, 265

A.3d 798, 800 (Pa. Super. 2021), aff'd, 284 A.3d 451 (Pa. 2022). Moreover,

“a legally-null order renders an appeal taken therefrom likewise legally null.”

Id. Accordingly, we quash this appeal.1

       Appeal quashed.

____________________________________________

1 If Bush believed it was improper for the trial court to decline to rule on her

pleadings before terminating the guardianship, her remedy was to file a timely
motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal. She failed to do so. Her
objections to the final accounting were filed 50 days after the termination
order was docketed and cannot reasonably be construed as a timely motion
for reconsideration or notice of appeal. See Pa. R.A.P. 903(a) (requiring that
a notice of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order
from which the appeal is taken”).

                                           -3-
J-A17012-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/28/2023

                          -4-