Court Opinion

ID: 9380976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 18:06:59.712589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.747807
License: Public Domain

J-A03009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    ESTATE OF V.E.R, DECEASED                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
    APPEAL OF: T.J.R.                          :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1515 EDA 2022
                                               :

                  Appeal from the Order Entered May 24, 2022
         in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Orphans’ Court
                             at No(s): 2007-E0088

BEFORE:      KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                          FILED MARCH 21, 2023

        Appellant, Thomas J. Romano, appeals pro se from the orphans’ court’s

May 24, 2022 order denying the petition to remove John J. Gonzales, Esq. as

administrator of Decedent’s estate. After careful review, we affirm.1

        The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from

the certified record, are as follows: On April 17, 2004, Dr. Vincent E. Romano

(hereinafter, “Decedent”) executed a deed which transferred his interest to

his home at 256 Radcliffe Street, Bristol, Pennsylvania (the “property”) to his

daughter, Mary Jo D’Agostino and her husband, Peter D’Agostino, while

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1Appellees, Bernadette Snearowski and Mary Jo D’Agostino, filed a letter on
October 3, 2022 indicating that they will not be filing an appellate brief in this
matter.
J-A03009-23

reserving a life estate for himself.    In 2007, Appellant, Decedent’s son,

initiated guardianship proceedings regarding Decedent.           After various

petitions and several hearings, the orphan’s court entered a decree on June

12, 2007, which declared Decedent to be an incapacitated person and

appointed Deborah L. Klock as plenary guardian of his person and estate.

      On May 5, 2010, Decedent died testate, domiciled in Bucks County,

Pennsylvania. He was survived by nine of his children. On or about the date

of Decedent’s death, Appellant filed an informal caveat with the Bucks County

Register of Wills, contending that Decedent executed a codicil to his February

9, 2001 will on January 30, 2007. The codicil nominated Appellant to serve

as executor. Michael Romano, another son of Decedent, also filed a “Petition

for Grant of Letters Testamentary” with the Register of Wills on May 5, 2010.

The will that Michael Romano offered for probate was dated June 15, 1998

and nominated Michael Romano to serve as executor.          On May 19, 2010,

Appellant filed a “Petition for Grant of Letters Testamentary” with the Register

of Wills, which offered for probate Decedent’s February 9, 2001 will and the

January 30, 2007 codicil.

      The Register of Wills scheduled a hearing for August 31, 2010 to resolve

the controversy. By agreement of the parties, the Register of Wills admitted

to probate Decedent’s February 9, 2001 will and appointed John Gonzales,

Esq., as a neutral administrator of Decedent’s estate. Over the intervening

years since this resolution, Decedent’s Estate and the guardianship have been

                                     -2-
J-A03009-23

the subject of extensive litigation, which has included objections to the estate

accounting filed by the Administrator Gonzales and objections to the

guardianship accounting of Deborah Klock.

      No party moved for a hearing on the objections, and as a result, the

orphans’ court sua sponte scheduled a final hearing on the objections on

March 17, 2020.    This hearing was ultimately continued as a result of the

Covid-19 pandemic, and on February 22, 2021, the orphans’ court issued case

management order that denied all pending pre-trial motions and set an April

2, 2021 deadline for the filing of additional pre-trial motions. The February

22, 2021 order also set a May 1, 2021 deadline to exchange expert reports;

identified and limited the issues for trial; and permitted all pre-trial rulings

and questions about the scope of hearing to be preserved for appellate review.

      On March 18, 2022, Administrator Gonzales filed a “Petition to Remove

Administrator cta by Consent.”      On May 18, 2022, a hearing was held

regarding this matter. Thereafter, on May 24, 2022, the orphans’ court issued

an order denying Administrator Gonzales’ petition.

      In its May 24, 2022 order, the orphans’ court explained that its decision

was based on the fact that Administrator Gonzales did not allege a medical

emergency or condition that warranted immediate action. The orphans’ court

further explained that it intended to schedule a hearing on the merits of the

outstanding objections no later than October 2022. See orphans’ court order,

5/24/22 at n.1.

                                     -3-
J-A03009-23

        On June 14, 2022, Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal from the May

24, 2022 order. On June 16, 2022, the orphans’ court ordered Appellant to

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed a lengthy Rule 1925(b) statement on July

5, 2022.

        On September 14, 2022, the orphans’ court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Therein, the orphan’s court found that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement

failed to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure in

numerous respects.       See orphans’ court opinion, 9/14/22 at 5-6.          The

orphans’ court concluded that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement “is so

disorganized and difficult to decipher” that it is the functional equivalent of no

concise statement at all.    Id. at 6.   The orphans’ court further noted that

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement “is far from concise,” but rather is a

conglomeration of various allegations intertwined with lengthy passages of

case law, statutes, Orphan’s Court Rules, and notes of testimony. Id. at 3,

6. Alternatively, the orphans’ court found that even if Appellant’s issues on

appeal are not waived due to his insufficient Rule 1925(b) statement, his

appeal should still be dismissed because the removal of an estate fiduciary

was within its discretion. Id. at 6-9.

        On September 27, 2022, Appellees filed an “Application to Quash”

Appellant’s appeal that was ultimately denied by this Court on October 31,

2022.

                                      -4-
J-A03009-23

      Prior to any consideration of the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must

first determine whether his brief complies with the Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure.

      It is well settled that parties to an appeal are required to submit briefs

in conformity, in all material respects, with the requirements of the Rules of

Appellate Procedure, as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will

admit. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the

appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania

Rules of Appellate Procedure.”      In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211

(Pa.Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011).

      We will not advocate or act as counsel for an appellant who has not

substantially complied with our rules. Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 932 A.2d

78, 93 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). Moreover, Appellant’s status as a

pro se litigant does not absolve him from responsibility for compliance with

the rules. See Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa.Super.

2005) (stating, “any person choosing to represent himself in a legal

proceeding must . . . assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will

be his undoing.”).

      Here, our review reveals that Appellant’s brief falls well below the

standards delineated in our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Preliminarily, we

observe that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of jurisdiction; a

separate section specifying the order or determination sought to be reviewed;

                                     -5-
J-A03009-23

a statement of the scope and standard of review; nor a short conclusion

stating the precise relief sought. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (3), and (9).

       Additionally, the “Argument” portion of Appellant’s brief is not “divided

into as many parts as there are questions to be argued[,]” as this section

contains no distinctive subheadings at all.      See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) and

2119(a). On the contrary, Appellant’s “Argument” is confusing and presents

vague, largely conclusory allegations of error intertwined with lengthy

passages of case law and notes of testimony. See Appellant’s brief at 20-41.2

Appellant fails to conduct a meaningful discussion and analysis of this legal

authority and how it is applicable to his case, in direct violation of Rule

2119(a).     See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating that the argument shall include

“such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”).

       Although Appellant’s brief does include a statement of the case, entitled

“Facts”, it is largely devoid of the necessary citations or references to the

record in violation of Rules 2119(b) and (c) and is interwoven with multiple

allegations that are not relevant to the factual or procedural history of this

case. See Appellant’s brief at 8-18.

       Most significantly, as discussed, Appellant has failed to include a

“Statement of Questions Involved” in his brief in direct violation of Rule

2116(a), which provides that the statement of the questions involved must

____________________________________________

2We note that Appellant’s brief does not contain pagination. For the ease of
our discussion, we have assigned each page a corresponding number.

                                           -6-
J-A03009-23

state the issues “with sufficient specificity to enable the reviewing court to

readily identify the issues to be resolved….” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) note (emphasis

added). Appellant’s failure to include a statement of the questions involved is

particularly troubling as this requirement defines the specific issues this court

is being asked to review. See e.g., Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159,

1160 (Pa.Super. 1996).

      Given the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief, we could quash his

appeal for failure to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.       In re

Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211.        However, in light of the fact that this case

proceeded to oral argument, we will briefly address the merits of Appellant’s

cognizable issue on appeal.

      As best we can discern from his woefully defective brief, the crux of

Appellant’s claim is that the orphans’ court did not remove Gonzales as

administrator of Decedent’s estate despite Appellant’s claim Gonzales “wasted

and mismanaged” the estate and “lacks the physical and cognitive abilities to

serve as Administrator.” See Appellant’s brief at 4, 19. This claim is belied

by the record.

      This Court has recognized that,

            the findings of a judge of the orphans’ court division,
            sitting without a jury, must be accorded the same
            weight and effect as the verdict of a jury, and will not
            be reversed by an appellate court in the absence of an
            abuse of discretion or a lack of evidentiary support.
            This rule is particularly applicable to findings of fact
            which are predicated upon the credibility of the
            witnesses, whom the judge has had the opportunity

                                      -7-
J-A03009-23

            to hear and observe, and upon the weight given to
            their testimony. In reviewing the Orphans’ Court’s
            findings, our task is to ensure that the record is free
            from legal error and to determine if the Orphans’
            Court’s findings are supported by competent and
            adequate evidence and are not predicated upon
            capricious disbelief of competent and credible
            evidence.

In re Estate of Bechtel, 92 A.3d 833, 837 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation

omitted).

     Instantly, the orphans’ court found that there was no evidence

presented in this matter that an immediate medical or cognitive emergency

existed that warranted Administrator Gonzales’ removal.        Specifically, the

orphans’ court reasoned as follows:

            [R]emoval was unnecessary because [Administrator
            Gonzales] did not allege, nor was any evidence
            presented that a medical or cognitive emergency or
            condition existed that warranted removal. While
            [Administrator Gonzales] has Parkinson’s disease and
            suffers some hand tremors, by his own admission his
            cognitive functioning has not diminished. [Notes of
            testimony, 5/18/22 at 12-13.] Consequently, we
            found that he currently possesses the physical and
            cognitive ability to serve as administrator of the
            estate. Furthermore, in our May 24, 2022 Order
            denying the petition for removal, we stated that it was
            our intention to schedule a hearing on the merits of
            the outstanding objections to the accounts and
            motions for surcharge no later than October of 2022.
            Pending the decision of this Honorable Court, we
            continue to be hopeful that a hearing to resolve
            outstanding issues relative to the estate could be held
            in the near future, at which time, [Administrator
            Gonzales] would be relieved of his duties as
            administrator.       Because     we    perceive     that
            [Administrator Gonzales] presently is capable of

                                      -8-
J-A03009-23

            serving as administrator of the estate, we respectfully
            submit that Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed.

Orphans’ court opinion, 9/14/22, at        7   (notes of testimony    citation

reformatted).

      Following our thorough review, we discern no abuse of discretion on the

part of the orphans’ court in reaching this decision. The orphans’ court found

the testimony of Administrator Gonzales credible, and we are precluded from

reweighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for that of the

factfinder. See In re Estate of Bechtel, 92 A.3d at 837.

      Accordingly, we affirm the orphans’ court’s May 24, 2022 order denying

the petition to remove Administrator Gonzales as administrator of Decedent’s

estate.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/21/2023

                                     -9-