Court Opinion

ID: 9877558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:08:42.843393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:01.631579
License: Public Domain

J-S08016-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  IN RE: E.G., AN INCAPACITATED                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  PERSON                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: I.G.                              :
                                               :   No. 1135 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans’ Court at
                          No(s): 1999-00311 1\2

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                       FILED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

       I.G. (Appellant), daughter of E.G. (Decedent), the incapacitated person,

appeals, pro se, from the July 20, 2022, order entered in the Lancaster County

Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court, confirming the Adjudication of the

Accounting filed on behalf of the estate of Decedent (Estate).1 Appellant also

purports to appeal from the court’s August 1, 2012, order denying her

exceptions to the June 29, 2012, Adjudication of the Estate. Based on the

following, we affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 This order is appealable as of right per Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(1).
J-S08016-23

      Decedent was married but her husband passed away in 1977. Together,

they had Appellant and four other children.       Two of the siblings “helped

manage . . . Decedent’s assets but . . . the sole responsibility of managing the

assets fell to [Appellant] in . . . 1983 or 1984 when . . . Decedent’s agent

under power of attorney was switched to [Appellant].” Adjudication, 7/20/22,

at 7-8. As of February 2000, “Decedent owned six parcels of real property,

consisting of five rental properties in Lancaster City and an undivided one-

third interest in a commercial property in New Jersey.” Id. at 8. Decedent’s

will, which was executed while Appellant was serving as her power of attorney,

left the entire estate to Appellant. See id. at 9-10.

      The case has a protracted procedural history, which the orphans’ court

summarized as follows:

             On February 16, 2000, [Decedent] was declared a totally
      incapacitated person at Lancaster County docket 311 1/2 of 1999,
      but the determination was made that she was only in need of a
      guardian of the estate. Ephrata National Bank [(ENB)] was
      appointed as the guardian of the estate of [Decedent]. The power
      of attorney granted to [Appellant,] was revoked [at this time].

            On August 9, 2002, [ENB] filed the annual report as
      guardian of the estate. On August 21, 2002, [Appellant] filed
      written objections to [the] accounting of [ENB]. The court
      appointed a master to conduct an investigation. The master’s
      report was filed on March 27, 2003.

            On May 1, 2003, [ENB] filed a first and partial account. This
      account was called for audit on June 3, 2003. On June 2, 2003,
      [Appellant] filed objections to the “Final Report[”.        These]
      objections were also signed by [Decedent].            Counsel was
      appointed to represent [Decedent] during these proceedings.
      Hearings were held on the objections and an adjudication was
      entered by the [orphans’] court on July 15, 2004.

                                     -2-
J-S08016-23

             On April 21, 2008, [Appellant], through Andrew H. Shaw,
       Esquire, filed a petition for citation to compel account. On August
       6, 2008, [ENB] filed a second account. On September 15, 2008,
       [Appellant], also through Attorney Shaw, filed objections to the
       second account.

             [In late 2009, several orders were entered approving the
       sale of several of Decedent’s properties, including one sale to
       Appellant.]

             After lengthy discovery and subsequent hearings, an
       adjudication was entered by the court on June 29, 2012[, which
       confirmed the August 2008 account]. A notice of appeal was filed
       by Scott Alan Mitchell, Esquire, on behalf of [Appellant], to the
       June 20, 2012, adjudication as Attorney Shaw no longer
       represented [Appellant]. The adjudication of the [orphans’] court
       was affirmed by the Superior Court on August 13, 2013. [See In
       re: E.G., an Incapacitated Person, 1564 MDA 2012 (unpub.
       memo.) (Pa. Super. Aug. 13, 2013).2]

              [Decedent] died on December 4, 2014.

             On February 9, 2015, [Appellant] was granted Letters
       Testamentary in the estate of [Decedent]. No attorney has
       entered an appearance for [Appellant] in her role as Executrix of
       Decedent’s estate. [Appellant], as Executrix, has represented
       herself throughout the estate proceeding.

             On April 27, 2015, [ENB] filed its final account as guardian
       of the estate of [Decedent], docketed to the incapacity file. This
       was filed as a formal account and listed for call of the audit on
       June 2, 2015. The accounting period in this account ran from July
       23, 2008, through December 4, 2014.

             [O]n October 6, 2015, [Appellant], through Jeffrey Goss,
       Esquire, filed objections to the final account. The parties engaged
____________________________________________

2 It merits mention that this panel recently issued a decision involving
Appellant and Attorney Shaw, which concerned a legal malpractice dispute.
See Grivas v. Shaw, 1207 MDA 2022 (unpub. memo.) (Pa. Super. Aug. 25,
2023). The unpublished memorandum was prepared by this same author.

                                           -3-
J-S08016-23

     in a period of discovery. On April 6, 2017, the [orphans’] court
     granted the petition of [Attorney Goss] to withdraw as counsel
     and directed [Appellant] to complete discovery by June 23, 2017.

           [Appellant] represented herself for a period of time after
     Attorney Goss’s withdrawal. On June 19, 2017, in the incapacity
     matter, [Appellant], acting pro se, filed a motion to compel and
     extend discovery.     On June 27, 2017, [Appellant] filed an
     amended motion to compel and extend discovery. A hearing on
     the discovery motion was scheduled for August 30, 2017.

           On August 28, 2017, Attorney Michael E. McHale entered his
     appearance on behalf of [Appellant] in the incapacity matter.
     Attorney McHale filed a motion to continue the discovery hearing,
     which was granted. . . .

            At the [rescheduled] October 27, 2017, hearing, counsel for
     [ENB] and Attorney McHale, on behalf of his client, entered a
     stipulation of facts for the evidentiary hearing, which included, in
     part, averments that [ENB] was responsible for the maintenance
     of the properties [owned] by [Decedent], that the bank had hired
     Trinity Management Associates to perform maintenance and
     repairs of the properties, that the bank had not destroyed any
     “invoices, letters, statements, checks and other written
     documentation” received from Trinity Property Management and
     that “[a]t the present time, [ENB] ha[d] provided [Appellant] with
     any and all documents from Trinity Management Associates . . .
     in its possession, custody or control.” The hearing was concluded
     after the entry of the stipulated facts and the matter was resolved
     according to the representations of counsel.

            On November 13, 2017, [17] days after the conclusion of
     the discovery hearing held in the incapacity matter, [Appellant]
     filed a motion in the estate matter, pro se, to “remove guardian
     of the estate, surcharge [ENB] for fiduciary fees, impose punitive
     and compensatory damages for failure to release funds and
     privileged material on the estate of [Decedent].” On December 4,
     2017, [ENB] filed an Answer . . . and attached thereto the
     stipulated facts executed by [the parties] in the incapacity matter.

          On April 19, 2018, Attorney McHale filed “Additional
     Objections to the Final Account of [ENB], Guardian of the Estate
     of [Decedent].”    On April 20, 2018, Attorney McHale filed
     “Amended Additional Objections to the Final Account of [ENB],

                                    -4-
J-S08016-23

     Guardian of the Estate of [Decedent].” On June 28, 2018,
     Attorney McHale filed “Second Amended Additional Objections to
     the Final Account of [ENB], Guardian of the Estate of [Decedent].”

           On October 25, 2018, Attorney Nathan Volpi entered his
     appearance as co-counsel (with Attorney McHale) for [Appellant].
     A hearing on the Objections was set for March 11 and 12, 2019.
     These hearings were continued to April 8 and 9, 2019. On April
     3, 2019, Attorney Volpi filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.
     [T]he [orphans’ c]ourt entered an Order giving Attorney Volpi
     leave to withdraw and continuing the hearing [on] April 9, 2019.

          On September 23, 2019, the [orphans’ c]ourt granted the
     request of Attorney McHale for further limited discovery.

           Attorney McHale’s representation of [Appellant] was cut
     short due to the suspension of his license to practice law by the
     Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
     [Appellant] represented herself until she obtained new counsel.

          On December 17, 2019, Attorney James D. Wolman entered
     his appearance on behalf of [Appellant].     Attorney Wolman
     remain[ed Appellant]’s legal counsel [for the remainder of the
     proceedings].

           Initially, a hearing was set for May 13, 2020, but this
     hearing was transformed into a status conference by Court Order
     dated May 6, 2020.

          Hearings on the Objections were held on February 16,
     February 17, February 19, and July 26, 2021.

           On April 5, 2021, Attorney Wolman filed a Petition of
     [Appellant] versus [ENB] for Non-Compliance with Discovery
     Orders and Failure to Produce Documents and Things (hereinafter
     the “Petition for Non-Compliance with Discovery Orders”). A
     hearing on the Motion for Sanctions was held on September 17,
     2021.

Adjudication at 1-7 (record citations omitted; some paragraph breaks added).

     On July 20, 2022, the orphans’ court issued its Adjudication, which

confirmed ENB’s 2015 Final Account of the Estate, adjusted the balance set

                                   -5-
J-S08016-23

forth on the Account, and denied Appellant’s motion for sanctions.         See

Adjudication at 88. The Adjudication resulted in two surcharges against ENB,

which amounted to $235.00, and two credits to ENB — $53,730.25 in attorney

fees, and $1,675.78 for reasonable management fees. See id. at 78, 81, 89.

The Adjudication spanned a total of 92 pages in length and comprehensively

discussed each of Appellants’ objections to the 2015 Final Account.

       On August 12, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal while still

being represented by Attorney Wolman. On August 15, 2022, the orphans’

court entered an order directing Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement of errors complained of on appeal. To avoid hybrid representation,

the court also directed Attorney Wolman to file a praecipe to withdraw his

appearance as counsel or, in the alternative, inform the court of his intent to

handle the appeal within seven days after the entry of the order.3 Attorney

Wolman failed to take any action.

       During this time, on August 26, 2022, Appellant file a pro se motion for

a 30-day extension to file a concise statement.

       On August 29, 2022, following no action by Attorney Wolman, the

orphans’ court issued an order which required Appellant’s motion for an

extension of time be referred to Attorney Wolman as counsel of record.

____________________________________________

3 See Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (explaining that hybrid

representation is impermissible).

                                           -6-
J-S08016-23

Thereafter, Appellant filed an “Application to Proceed Pro Se” on September

15, 2022. Four days later, Attorney Wolman withdrew his appearance.

      On September 22, 2022, the orphans’ court entered an order, which:

(1) found Appellant became pro se of record; (2) granted her request for an

extension of time; and (3) ordered the concise statement be submitted to the

orphans’ court and served upon ENB in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1).

See Order, 9/23/22, at 2.

      Appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on October 6, 2022, which

identified a myriad of issues as follows:

      a. The court committed an error of the law and abuse of discretion
      in overruling all the objections to the account that completely went
      against the voluminous weight of the evidence and ignor[ed] the
      expert forensic testimony and reports on all issues including
      anomalies, loss of untimely sales on real estate, expenditures,
      accountings, reporting, income, social security, unpaid loans, e-
      trade, tax returns, capital gains, double dipping, overcharges,
      investments, rents, [New Jersey] and Greece assets, guardianship
      fees, commissions, bankrupt Trinity management, fabricated
      invoices from convicted felon contractors, lack of permits,
      cancelled checks and more.

      b. The court committed an error of the law by failing to recognize
      attorney James D. Wolman firing from the case for his impediment
      and incompetence in refusing to undertake appropriate corrective
      actions.

      c. The court committed an error of law for a mistrial in failing to
      recognize [Appellant]’s pro se filings before and after the
      dismissal/firing of attorney James D. Wolman [regarding]
      abandonment and sabotage efforts to guise the motion in
      quashing the 2012 Adjudication for improper ex parte
      communications and conflicts of interest to cover up fraud,
      perjury, conspiracy, collusion, and racketeering to deplete the
      estate.

                                     -7-
J-S08016-23

     d. The court committed an error of law by ignoring [ENB]’s breach
     of fiduciary duties and failures in obeyance of the law. Lacking
     transparency and honesty on all objections. Form of accounting,
     annual reporting, inaccurate annual income tax returns,
     expending principal without court approval including caregiving,
     nursing homes, attorney fees, and rental property expenditures,
     permits, leases, contracts, invoices, cancelled checks and more
     through out the entire [14] year duration of the abusive
     guardianship racket and beyond.

     e. The court committed an error of law by ignoring [Appellant]’s
     motion for releasing funds and unlawful monthly fees that result
     in additional penalties on the inheritance taxes which also
     prevented the estate from being administered for almost [8] years
     without cause long after the guardianship ended.

     f. The court committed an error law by ignoring [ENB]’s breach of
     fiduciary duties in safe guarding [New Jersey] and Greece assets,
     collecting unpaid loans, collecting unauthorized [e-]trade
     transactions, filing timely annual accounts with the court,
     preventing real estate fire sales, failure in reducing capital gains
     tax, utility shut offs, Greek safe deposit box, Greek bank account,
     personal property, excessive guardianship fees, commissions,
     unauthorized monthly maintenance fees, hiring third party
     bankrupt management with convicted felon contractors without
     permits, loss of [New Jersey] real estate, rents, equipment, [New
     Jersey] tax lien payments and other rental property expenditures
     including 13 Mary Street and more without value nor court
     approval in expending principal.

     g. The court committed an error of law on [ENB]’s non[-
     ]compliance with discovery orders, subpoenas and failures to
     produce documents and other things[, i]ncluding the court’s error
     in ignoring the rebuked stipulation entered fraudulently without
     [Appellant]’s approval, knowledge, or authorization.

     h. The court committed an error on opposition of Calli Glass[,
     Appellant’s sibling,] and [ENB]’s attorney fees for disservices and
     without court approval to expend principal.

     i. The court committed an error of law by not surcharging and
     ignoring [Appellant]’s legal attorney fees, costs, forensic costs and
     other fees with interest related to deciphering [ENB]’s deceptive
     and honest services fraud to the estate.

                                     -8-
J-S08016-23

       j. The court committed an error in failing to surcharge [ENB] for
       punitive and compensatory damages on all their failures and
       complete disobedience of the law throughout the entire [14 year]
       guardianship and beyond. And further guising the unethical
       activities by colluding with opposing counsel with a fraudulent
       unauthorized stipulation in efforts to cover up conspiracy and theft
       by deception on fabricated invoices, statements, ledgers, letters
       and more[, i]ncluding omitting and altering discovery requests.

Appellant’s Strict Twelve (12) Day Required R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement,

10/6/22, at 1-2 (unpaginated; some capitalization omitted).

       Meanwhile, on September 15, 2022, Appellant also filed an application

to proceed pro se with this Court, which was granted on October 11, 2022.

That same day, the orphans’ court issued its opinion sur appeal pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). The orphans’ court incorporated its findings from its July

20, 2022, adjudication in its opinion. See Opinion Sur Appeal, 10/11/22, at

3. The matter is now properly before us.4

       Appellant now raises the following two issues on appeal:

       A. Whether there was an event during the trial that constitutes a
       mistake and which led to substantial and irreparable prejudice to
       [A]ppellant warranting a reversal and a remand of the case[?]

       B. Whether the [orphans’] court fell short of the standards of
       appellate review, to consider the merits of the dispute at issue,
       when it in summarily affirmed the Adjudication of July 20, 2022
       and labeled [A]ppellant’s objection to adjudication a “relitigation
       of issues” and consequently threw out [A]ppellant’s objection
       based on reasons provided in the said Adjudication.
____________________________________________

4 Following her notice of appeal, Appellant filed a motion to incorporate her

pro se filings as part of the orphans’ court record. By per curiam order, this
Court denied her application on February 21, 2023.

                                           -9-
J-S08016-23

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

      Preliminary, we observe the following:

      Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed
      by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon
      the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent
      [herself] in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent,
      assume that [her] lack of expertise and legal training will be [her]
      undoing.

In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted).

      Our standard of review in this matter is as follows:

            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.

         The Orphans’ Court decision will not be reversed unless
         there has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error
         in applying the correct principles of law.

            This Court’s standard of review of questions of law is de
      novo, and the scope of review is plenary, as we may review the
      entire record in making our determination. When we review
      questions of law, our standard of review is limited to determining
      whether the trial court committed an error of law.

In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010, 1018 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc) (citations &

quotation marks omitted).

      In Appellant’s first issue, she claims “there were mistakes during the

[August 1, 2012,] Adjudication process in terms of inter partes communication

                                     - 10 -
J-S08016-23

that contravenes the principle of due notice.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. She

alleges “the discovery process unearthed significant events that must be taken

into   account[,]”     which   included    ENB     purportedly   concealing    “certain

information . . . through redaction of undated internal minutes which were

only revealed recently through [the] discovery process in the final

accounting.”     Id.     Appellant states ENB withheld this “non-privileged

information” from the orphans’ court and her during trial.            Id.     Appellant

contends:

             The two mistakes pointed out led to significant prejudice to
       [her] case during [the August 1, 2012,] Adjudication. In this
       regard, there occurred an error during [the] hearing of the
       Exceptions to ENB’s account, a legal defect in the court
       proceedings, and conduct outside the courtroom that resulted in
       substantial and irreparable prejudice to . . . Appellant.

Id. at 11 (citations omitted).

       Appellant’s claim fails for several reasons.          First, Appellant never

specifies when the “discovery process” occurred or what “information” ENB

failed to turn over to her and the orphans’ court as a result — she merely

alludes to “mistakes” with no further explanation and alleges she was

prejudiced with regard to the 2012 Adjudication as a result of these

“mistakes.” See Appellant’s Brief at 10. She also fails to cite any point in the

certified record in support of her claim. Thus, her claim amounts to a vague

and undeveloped argument. We note:

       [W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a
       claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the
       issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim

                                          - 11 -
J-S08016-23

       is waived. It is not the obligation of [an appellate court . . . ] to
       formulate [a]ppellant’s arguments for [her].

Wirth v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 822, 837 (Pa. 2014) (citation & quotation

marks omitted). Accordingly, we find this issue is waived.

       Moreover, assuming arguendo Appellant had properly preserved this

claim, we would conclude she was not entitled to any relief as the doctrine of

res judicata would apply.

       The doctrine of res judicata “holds that a final judgment on the merits

by a court of competent jurisdiction will bar any future action on the same

cause of action between the parties and their privies.” Khalil v. Travelers

Indemnity Co. of America, 273 A.3d 1211, 1223 (Pa. Super. 2022), appeal

denied, 288 A.3d 487 (Pa. 2022). Res judicata “prohibits parties involved in

prior, concluded litigation from subsequently asserting claims in a later action

that were raised, or could have been raised, in the previous adjudication.” Id.

       The crux of Appellant’s claim appears to be an attack on the validity of

the 2012 Adjudication. As the orphans’ court correctly points out: “Appellant

mistakenly continues to believe that she is entitled to re-litigate every issue

which may have arisen since [the] declaration of [Decedent]’s incapacity in

2000 and the appointment of [ENB] as her guardian.” Opinion Sur Appeal,

10/11/22, at 5.5

____________________________________________

5 Additionally, in the July 20, 2022, Adjudication, the orphans’ court observed

the following:
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 12 -
J-S08016-23

       We note that Appellant essentially asks us to revisit the orphans’ court

2012 Adjudication, which she had already challenged, and which this Court

affirmed in August of 2013. See In re: E.G., 1564 MDA 2012. Based on the

argument Appellant has presented to us, she could have raised this “mistake”

issue in the previous litigation. See Khalil, 273 A.3d at 1223. We decline to

reopen the 2012 Adjudication.             Accordingly, we need not address this

argument further.

       In her second argument, Appellant contends that the orphans’ court

opinion sur appeal “fell short of [a]ppellate review standards because the

[o]rphans’ court failed to consider the merits of the dispute at issue, but

instead summarily affirmed the [July 20, 2022,] Adjudication.” Appellant’s

Brief at 12. Specifically, she claims:

       [T]he [o]rphans’ [c]ourt should have applied the merits of the
       [e]xception to ENB’s Account and applied legal analysis,
       application of law to resolve it. Instead, the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt
       summarily described her call to ENB Account on June 2, 2015 and
       subsequent [e]xception to the said Account as an attempt at re-
       litigation of issues. This was a fresh call to [the A]ccount.
____________________________________________

              [Appellant]’s bitterness at being removed as the sole person
       in control of her mother’s assets has been played across this
       docket for over 14 years and was readily apparent in her
       testimony and filings. [Appellant] has hurled allegations of fraud,
       perjury, backroom dealings, and miscarriages of justice but has
       failed to prove any of these accusations time and time again. She
       plays the victim when it suits her or she asserts victim status on
       behalf of . . . Decedent.

Adjudication, 7/20/22, at 82.

                                          - 13 -
J-S08016-23

       Accordingly, such a capricious disregard arises if a court fails to
       indicate that [it] has examined the countervailing substantive
       (Appellant’s) testimony that had to be considered at arriving at its
       decision without due regard that this would result in a reversal. It
       is also referred to as [an] abuse of discretion.

             Further to the preceding, . . . Appellant argues that findings
       of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the [o]pinion sur
       appeal lacked substantial evidentiary backing.

Appellant’s Brief at 12-13 (citations omitted).

       A review of the July 20, 2022, Adjudication and the opinion sur appeal

contradict Appellant’s suggestion that the orphans’ court failed to consider the

merits of the dispute at issue. As mentioned above, the court’s adjudication

was 92 pages in length and the court addressed all of Appellant’s objections

to ENB’s 2015 Final Account with sufficient consideration.6 See Adjudication

at 10-84.      Appellant does not identify which determination, as to her

numerous objections, with which she takes issue. She also continues to ignore

the fact that some of her objections were deemed abandoned, while others

were found to be waived because she should have raised those issues at the

time of the 2012 Adjudication. See Khalil, 273 A.3d at 1223. Appellant fails

to provide any evidence to support her vague, bald assertions. Moreover, to

____________________________________________

6 Moreover, it merits mention that the orphans’ court conducted a hearing on

Appellant’s objections that spanned four days.      Additionally, the court
determined Decedent’s Estate was entitled to a surcharge of $235 because it
found two instances of “questionable billing” by ENB, “in the scope of its
activities as guardian, [but] these errors [were] de minimis.”         See
Adjudication, 7/20/22, at 83-84.

                                          - 14 -
J-S08016-23

the extent she argues the court ignored her testimony, a review of the record

reveals the court considered her testimony but did not find her credible. See

i.e., Adjudication, 7/20/22, at 82. Accordingly, she has failed to demonstrate

the court committed “an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying

the correct principles of law.” In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d at 1018. Therefore,

Appellant’s second argument fails.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/27/2023

                                     - 15 -