Court Opinion

ID: 9384954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 17:07:30.682627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.843013
License: Public Domain

J-S38034-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 ESTATE OF GERALDINE M. PRICE,              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 DECEASED                                   :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                            :
                                            :
 APPEAL OF: DARLENE PRICE AND               :
 KIM PRICE                                  :
                                            :
                                            :
                                            :   No. 1501 EDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
                   Orphans' Court at No(s): 2018-X4250

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                             FILED APRIL 5, 2023

      Darlene Price and Kim Price (“Price Sisters”) appeal the order entered

by the orphans’ court distributing the Estate of Geraldine M. Price equally,

one-third each, between the two Price Sisters and their brother, Alison Price

(“Mr. Price”), the three beneficiaries. Upon review, we vacate the order and

remand for modification of the order of distribution in accordance with this

memorandum.

      The orphans’ court set forth the facts and relevant procedural history as

follows:

      This long-standing estate fight began in November of 2018, two
      months after Geraldine Price died, with a typical filing of a Petition
      for Grant of Letters Administration by [Mr. Price] seeking to be
      named as administrator of the estate of his widowed mother who
      died intestate. The decedent's three children, [the Price Sisters
      and Mr. Price], were all named as co-administrators and were
      listed on the petition as Ms. Price's sole heirs.

                                      ***
J-S38034-22

      On December 21, 2021, during a hearing before the Hon. Gail
      Weilheimer of this [c]ourt, the parties reached a settlement
      agreement which she placed on the record. The agreement
      related to, in relevant part, the sale of a property located at 1460
      Doris Road in Abington, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (the
      "Property"). [This agreement and the court’s] December 27, 2021
      Order resolved five different petitions then before [it], including
      [its] dismissal of the petition seeking to evict [Mr. Price] from the
      Property, and also permitting and requiring the sale of the
      Property to [Mr. Price’s] girlfriend within 60 days without further
      [c]ourt approval, after which it would go to public sale.

      On February 21, 2022, [Mr. Price] requested a brief extension for
      sale of the Property . . . [which] was granted by the [orphan’s
      court] with sale to be completed no later than February 24, 2022.
      Sale of the Property took place on February 24, 2022 as ordered,
      at which point the instant argument between the parties
      escalated, as (despite the existence of their settlement
      agreement) they were unable to reach consensus on how the
      proceeds of the sale (the "Proceeds") should be distributed. On
      the following day, [Mr. Price] filed his Petition to Open an Estate
      Account and Stay Distribution of Estate Proceeds Pending Final
      Accounting. [The Price Sisters] responded on March 1, 2022,
      agreeing to the opening of an estate account but at the same time
      seeking the removal of [Mr. Price] as Co-Administrator of Ms.
      Price's estate as well as sanctions against Mr. Price for delay and
      for causing [the Price Sisters] to incur additional legal fees.

      The [orphans’ court] heard testimony from the parties on March
      21, 2022, at the conclusion of which the parties were ordered to
      immediately open an estate account for the deposit of the
      [P]roceeds of the sale of the Property and to provide briefs to the
      [c]ourt setting forth how they thought the $72,919.88 being
      deposited in the account should be disbursed . . . . After careful
      consideration of the submissions of each party as well as the
      record, our May 5, 2022 order was issued, stating "we find that
      the parties are so close in their proposed resolution of this matter
      that an equitable solution which will avoid the need for further
      litigation and additional counsel fees is appropriate" and ordering
      the distribution of the $ 72,919.88 in the estate account one-third
      each to [the Price Sisters] and [Mr. Price].

Trial Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 1-3.

                                       -2-
J-S38034-22

       The Price Sisters filed this timely appeal.   The Price Sisters and the

orphans’ court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.1

       The Price Sisters raise the following issue for our review:

       Whether the trial court erred when it failed to enforce the terms
       of the court ordered settlement agreement dated December 21,
       2021, among the co-administrators?
____________________________________________

1 The orphans’ court asserts that the Price Sisters’ appeal should be quashed
or their failure to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
1925(b). The court maintains that none of the 14 issues raised therein
ascribed any error to its order. Instead, “some of the listed items are
statements of fact, others are questions, some are incomprehensible, others
relate to matters not before the [court] at the time of the hearing.” Because
it could not comprehend the specific issues to be raised on appeal and was
precluded from analyzing them, the court asserts that the Price Sisters’ appeal
should be quashed. Trial Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 8.

On appeal, the Price Sisters also raise the following issue in response: “Are
the [Price Sisters] entitled to file a vague and overly broad Statement of the
Issues to be Raised on Appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) because the orphans’
courts’ order’s reasoning was vague and not discernible from the record? Price
Sisters’ Brief at 4. Because they could not discern the court’s rationale for its
May 5, 2022, order, the Price Sisters claim they could not state their issues
with the requisite specificity. Therefore, their appeal should not be quashed.
Price Sisters’ Brief at 14.

A Rule 1925(b) statement is an important component of the appellate process
because it allows the trial court to identify and focus on those issues the party
plans to raise on appeal. Riley v. Foley, 783 A.2d 807, 813 (Pa. Super.
2001). As such, the Rule 1925(b) statement must be sufficiently “concise”
and “coherent” so that the trial court can identify the issues to be raised on
appeal. “A concise statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify
the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent to no Concise
Statement at all.” Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686-87 (Pa.
Super. 2001).

Here, although poorly written, the Price Sisters’ Rule 1925(b) statement
encompasses the issue they challenge on appeal. Additionally, the issue is
relatively straightforward, and the orphans’ court was able to address it to
some degree in its 1925(a) opinion. We therefore decline to find waiver.

                                           -3-
J-S38034-22

Price Sisters’ Brief at 4.

      On appeal, the Price Sisters claim that the trial court failed to follow the

settlement agreement entered among the three beneficiaries when it

distributed the money in the Estate account. Specifically, they maintain that

the agreement required Mr. Price to pay rent to the Estate for his use of the

Property; this amount was then to be offset by certain payments Mr. Price

made to maintain the Property. After that offset, the Price Sisters argue Mr.

Price still owed the Estate $31,0128.94, but he never paid any of it to the

Estate. The Price Sisters further maintain that Mr. Price is not entitled to share

in the rent proceeds as he claims; “there is no clause in the agreement that

states [Mr. Price] gets a part of the rent payment he owes.” Price Sisters’

Brief at 21.   As such, they contend that the orphans’ court erred when it

distributed 1/3 of the Proceeds from the sale of the Property to Mr. Price.

Instead, according to the Price Sisters, the court should have distributed the

estate funds equally between them, being $36,459.94. Price Sister’s Brief at

19-21.

      “Our standard of review of an orphans’ court’s decision is deferential.”

In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 54 A.3d 359, 362 (Pa. Super. 2012). When

reviewing an orphans’ court decree, this Court must determine whether the

record is free from legal error and whether the orphans’ court’s findings are

supported by the record. Id. at 362–63. Because the orphans' court sits as

the finder of fact, it determines the credibility of the witnesses and, on review,

this Court will not reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of

                                      -4-
J-S38034-22

discretion. Id. at 363. However, this Court is not bound to give the same

deference to the orphans' court conclusions of law. Id. (quotation marks and

citation omitted). Where the rules of law on which the orphans' court relied

are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable, we will reverse the court's decree.

Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, we point out that an

abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment. However, if in reaching

a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment

exercised is shown by the record to be manifestly unreasonable or the product

of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, discretion has been abused.   Id.

(citation omitted).

      In estate matters, family settlement agreements are favored because

they are an attempt to avoid potentially divisive litigation. The existence of

such agreement must be shown by clear and unambiguous evidence; the

agreement must be binding on all parties. In re Estate of Brojack, 467 A.2d

1175, 1179 (Pa. Super. 1983). Where a fair and valid agreement is present

it will be upheld whenever possible; in the absence of fraud the agreement is

binding even if based on an error of law. Id.

         Here, there is no dispute as to whether there was an agreement or its

terms.     The agreement made between the Price Sisters and Mr. Price on

December 22, 2021, was placed on the record in open court.          All parties

agreed to its terms knowingly and voluntarily when questioned by the court.

Notably, despite the controversy that exists over this Estate, the parties’

                                      -5-
J-S38034-22

agreement is relatively simple and straightforward.     In relevant part, it

provides:

     Now, as it relates to the Abington property located at 1460 Doris
     Road in Abington, Pennsylvania, Allison Price has been residing in
     the property since the owner Geraldine Price died in September of
     2018. There is an agreement between the parties that Allison
     Price is obligated to pay rent in the amount of $2,450 a month
     from September 2018 to the present. The amount of money that
     is owed for the 39 months from September of 2018 to the present
     is $95,550.

     Mr. Price will continue to pay the monthly rent of $2,450 for the
     remainder of the time that he resides at this property, until such
     time as the property is purchased.

     The parties recognize that Mr. Price has been paying the mortgage
     in the approximate amount of $3,250. But Mr. Price's mortgage
     payments, which until such time as it will be documented by his
     attorney Mr. Tall, will be reduced from the rent that he owes to
     the estate.

     Mr. Price has also made payments to the Bankruptcy Court. The
     property was included in Allison Price's bankruptcy filing; and
     there have been Bankruptcy Court payments made at this point
     in the amount of $23,124.22, that there may be more owed; and
     that Mr. Price will also be credited the amount paid to Bankruptcy
     Court to preserve the property from the total amount of rent
     owed.

     There will be an estate bank account established. And any
     balance owed from the total amount of rent owed by Mr.
     Price after deducting mortgage payments and payments to
     the Bankruptcy Court will be paid to the estate account.

     If there is a credit owed to Mr. Price, he will be paid the credit
     from the estate after the sale of the Abington property. It may be
     that there is nothing owed after all the numbers are reconciled.
     That is regarding the rent of the Abington property.

N.T., 12/21/21, at 3-4 (emphasis added).

                                   -6-
J-S38034-22

       Additionally, the relevant numbers involved are undisputed. They are

as follows:

       Total amount of rent owed by Mr. Price: $ 100,450.00

       Proceeds from sale of Property:            $ 72,919.88

       Payments made by Mr. Price:                $ 69,421.062

Trial Court Opinion, 7/5/22, at 5.

       The parties, however, cannot agree how these numbers should be

applied to the agreement and how any remaining proceeds in the Estate

should be distributed. The Price Sisters claim that Mr. Price is not entitled to

any portion of the rent because “there was nothing in the agreement that said

he gets a part of the payment [rent] he owes.” Conversely, Mr. Price claims

that he is entitled a credit of 1/3 of the rent he paid. The orphans’ court

explained its understanding of the controversy:

       what the parties could not agree upon was whether [Mr. Price]
       was due a credit of $ 33,483.33 against the full $ 100,450 for his
       one-third share he would receive as a beneficiary of the estate or
       how the remaining proceeds should be distributed. [Mr. Price’s]
       counsel simply added up all the credits due Mr. Price including the
       one-third fair rental value credit but stopped there. [The Price
       Sisters’] counsel totaled the credits for the mortgage and
       Bankruptcy Court payments and subtracted them from the rent
       owed, coming up with a lump sum owed by [Mr. Price] to the
       estate [$29,510.94]. He did not take the next step of giving [Mr.
____________________________________________

2 According to the agreement, Mr. Price was to provide total mortgage
payments he made, being $46,296.84. That amount plus the amount he paid
to the bankruptcy court, $23,124.22, total $69,421.06. This total amount of
payments differs slightly from that contained in Mr. Price’s brief by $1,500.
Because the orphans’ court adopted individual numbers, we apply them to our
calculation herein.

                                           -7-
J-S38034-22

      Price] a credit for one-third of the rent paid to the estate. Nor did
      either side agree that each of the siblings [was] entitled to one
      third of any proceeds remaining in the estate account following
      completion of these calculations.

Id. It appears that, in deciding these issues for the parties, the orphans’ court

offset the 1/3 credit claimed by Mr. Price against the remaining rent owed to

the Estate claimed by the Price Sisters’. While this was not an exact offset,

the court concluded the parties were “close enough.”          It then equitably

distributed the remaining amount from the sale of the Property evenly

between the siblings. Id. at 10.

      Based upon our review, we disagree with the parties’ claims regarding

the treatment of the rent. Additionally, we find that the orphans’ court failed

to adhere to the terms of the parties’ agreement and erred when it calculated

the numbers.

      Importantly, according to the agreement, Mr. Price was obligated to pay

rent to the estate. In relevant part, the agreement provided:

      And any balance owed from the total amount of rent owed by Mr.
      Price after deducting mortgage payments and payments to the
      Bankruptcy Court will be paid to the estate account.

N.T., 12/21/21, at 3-4. This is confirmed further by the court’s colloquy of

one of the parties on December 21, 2021:

      THE COURT: Was he able to answer any questions that you have?
      Let me ask it this way. Do you have any outstanding questions at
      this time that were not answered by your attorney or the Court
      during the negotiations?

      MS. DARLENE PRICE: Yes.

      THE COURT: Okay, what is that?

                                      -8-
J-S38034-22

      MS. DARLENE PRICE: Okay. I want to know if from this moment
      forward the rent will be paid into an account?

      THE COURT: Yes. The rent, if I didn't say that, that is what we
      discussed initially, but there will be an estate account opened and
      rent will be paid into the account, yes.

      MS. DARLENE PRICE: That is every month?

      THE COURT: Yes.

      MS. DARLENE PRICE: I think the other part was they have 60 days
      clear and solid. And everything that is paid to the mortgage
      company and to the bankruptcy, there has to be paperwork, legal
      paperwork set forward in front of us when everything is being
      decided?

                                     ***

      THE COURT: When it comes to the rent payment, it will be monthly
      from this point forward.

      MS. DARLENE PRICE: Right.

      THE COURT: So we are at the end of December. So from January
      into the estate account that will be established.

      MS. DARLENE PRICE: Right.

      THE COURT: What we discussed initially is that Allison will open
      the estate account.

      MS. DARLENE PRICE: Hmm-hmm.

      THE COURT: And he will provide proof of that to his attorney. And
      his attorney will share that with Mr. Miller so you know what
      account that is and it will be clear to what monies were deposited.
      When it comes to how much has been paid to the mortgage
      company, Mr. Tall will get that from the mortgage company and
      you will have a printout exactly what is paid and that is what you
      will reconcile.

N.T., 12/21/21, at 11-12. Thus, it is evident that the rent was to go to the

                                     -9-
J-S38034-22

Estate and not the Price Sisters.3

       Similarly, Mr. Price is not entitled to a credit for 1/3 of the rent. This is

not to say however that Mr. Price will not receive his fair share of any rent left

in the Estate account. Because Mr. Price is a beneficiary of the estate, he is

entitled to a portion of the rent, just as his sisters are upon distribution.

       Turning to the application of the numbers to the parties’ agreement, we

observe that, after deducting what Mr. Price paid on behalf of the Estate from

the rent he owed, $100,450 less $69,421.06, Mr. Price still owed $31,028.94

to the Estate for rent. Mr. Price should have deposited this amount into the

Estate account as required by the parties’ agreement. And, although he did

not actually do so, this amount must still be included as an Estate asset

subject to final distribution.      Thus, adding this amount to the Proceeds of

$72,919.88 from the sale of the Property that was deposited into the Estate

account, the balance of the estate value should total $103,948.82.

       This however is not the amount that the orphans’ court distributed.

Instead, the court only distributed the proceeds from the sale of the Property,

splitting it evenly among the beneficiaries so that each would receive

$24,306.63. By contrast, had the court included the amount of rent Mr. Price

still owed to the Estate and divided $102,430.82 equally between the three

siblings, including Mr. Price, each would be entitled to $34,649.61.            The
____________________________________________

3 We further observe that the amount of rent, $2,450, was a fair market rental
value determined by an appraiser. This amount was not discounted up front
in exchange for the portion Mr. Price would receive once the Estate was
distributed.

                                          - 10 -
J-S38034-22

difference between what the parties are receiving under the orphans’ court’s

order versus what they should receive is $10,342.98.        While this is not a

significant sum, it is also not “so close” as the orphans’ court opined.

Moreover, Mr. Price is entitled to much less than the $24,306.63 account for

the unpaid rent he owed the estate.      Instead of $24,306.63, Mr. Price is

entitled to $34,649.61 minus the unpaid rent of $31,028.94 for a net amount

of $3,620.66.

      In sum, the trial court did not err in distributing 1/3 of the Estate to

each of the beneficiaries as such distribution was within its equitable powers.

However, the orphans’ court erred in failing to adhere to the parties’

agreement, and by not including the amount of rent Mr. Price still owed to the

Estate in the total amount it distributed. The total value of the Estate was

$102,430.82. Because Mr. Price never paid the rent he still owed into the

Estate account, he is not entitled to receive his full 1/3 distribution from the

proceeds held in the Estate account. Accordingly, Darlene Price and Kim Price

shall each receive $34,649.61 from the Estate account. Mr. Price shall receive

$3,620.66, which is his 1/3 share minus the amount of rent he did not pay

the Estate. We vacate the order distributing the $72,919.88 in the estate

account equally between the parties and remand with instructions to the

orphans’ court to modify its decree in accordance with this memorandum.

      Order vacated and remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished

                                     - 11 -
J-S38034-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/05/2023

                          - 12 -