Court Opinion

ID: 9955521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 17:14:19.633199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:04.591598
License: Public Domain

J-S05035-24

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN RE: ESTATE OF MARJORIE                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 VIRGINIA RENNINGER, DECEASED               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                            :
                                            :
 APPEAL OF: JOHN P. HOLUP AND               :
 MARJORIE V. HOLUP                          :
                                            :
                                            :
                                            :   No. 588 WDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered April 24, 2023
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
                      Orphans’ Court at No. 2621-0236

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                     FILED: MARCH 28, 2024

      John P. Holup and Marjorie V. Holup (Appellants) appeal pro se from the

order which invalidated the July 15, 2005 Last Will and Testament (2005 Will)

of Marjorie Virginia Renninger (Decedent). We affirm.

                         Facts and Procedural History

      Decedent died in 2006. Appellants are Decedent’s daughter (Marjorie),

and Marjorie’s son/Decedent’s grandson (John). Appellee Jonna Hall (Jonna)

is Marjorie’s daughter and John’s sister.

      This case involves Jonna’s challenge to the 2005 Will “presented for

probate [by Appellants] fifteen years after [Decedent’s] death[,] and the

ownership of a parcel of land [(Disputed Property)], formerly owned by the

Decedent, [and] conveyed by [Marjorie], as [Decedent’s] heir, [to Jonna,]

eight years ago.” Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 7/14/23, at 1; see also N.T.,

6/22/22, at 5 (Jonna’s counsel’s stating “the issue [is] between brother and
J-S05035-24

sister over [Disputed Property,] which contains a mobile home and a detached

garage”). The trial court described the Disputed Property as “1.9937 acres on

which a two car garage is erected and on which a mobile home is placed,

known as 1522 Gun Club Road, Uniontown, Fayette County, Pennsylvania.”

TCO at 1.

     In 1999, Decedent executed a Last Will and Testament (1999 Will) which

was drafted by Thomas Bowlen, Esquire. Id. at 2. The 1999 Will named

Marjorie as executrix and sole heir, but was never presented for probate. Id.

Also in 1999, Decedent conveyed to Marjorie parcels of real estate located

adjacent to the Disputed Property. Id.

     2014 – Marjorie Deeds the Disputed Property to Jonna

            In the summer of 2014, Marjorie [] consulted with …
     Douglas Sepic[, Esquire,] about various estate planning matters.
     As a result of these conversations, Attorney Sepic performed
     certain legal work for Marjorie [] and her husband, … including
     wills, powers of attorney, and medical powers of attorney. Though
     both Marjorie and [her husband] had medical issues prior to
     consulting with Attorney Sepic, he did not believe and/or observe
     any behavior that raised concerns about the mental capacity of
     either Marjorie or [her husband] at that time. According to
     Attorney Sepic, Marjorie and [her husband] also discussed the
     [Disputed Property] with him. In his view, there was no way to
     pass clear title to the [Disputed P]roperty without either opening
     an estate or following the procedure in Probate Estates and
     Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa. C.S.[] § 3546, to determine title to a
     decedent’s interest in real estate. Attorney Sepic testified that
     they were concerned about the cost of those options relative to
     the value of the property, as well as the risk of losing a share to
     the other intestate heirs. As a result, Marjorie [] determined
     that she wanted to convey the interest to her daughter,
     Jonna [], and did so by deed dated and executed on June
     6, 2014. Said deed was prepared by Attorney Sepic and executed
     by the parties in his office. Attorney Sepic provided for certain

                                    -2-
J-S05035-24

      legal fictions in the recital with the intent of establishing grounds
      for tacking time for a possible subsequent claim of adverse
      possession.

Appellee’s Brief at 10-11 (emphasis added); see also TCO at 2-3.

      2021 – Majorie files 2005 Will and Deeds the Disputed Property to John

      On February 26, 2021, Marjorie initiated the underlying action by filing

the 2005 Will for probate with the Fayette County Register of Wills. The 2005

Will names Marjorie as Decedent’s personal representative, and John as the

sole beneficiary. The Register of Wills granted testamentary letters, and on

March 3, 2021, Majorie executed a deed conveying the Disputed Property to

John. The 2005 Will “voided the June 6, 2014 deed” conveying the Disputed

Property to Jonna. TCO at 3. Consequently, Jonna petitioned the trial court

for a rule to show cause regarding the validity of the 2005 Will. Petition for

Rule to Show Cause (Petition), 3/11/21, at 1-11.

      Jonna asserted she had “legal standing to contest” the 2005 Will

because she was “a potential beneficiary.” Petition at ¶ 6. She averred that

Marjorie and John were the two witnesses to the 2005 Will, which “was not

prepared by an attorney, but instead was a template allegedly completed by

the Decedent.” Id. at ¶¶ 3, 40, 42 (underline in original).

      Jonna explained that after the Register of Wills granted Marjorie

testamentary letters, Marjorie executed the deed conveying the Disputed

Property to John.     Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.      She further averred that John, by

correspondence to Jonna dated March 4, 2021, “indicated that he now owned”

the Disputed Property. Id. at ¶ 24. According to Jonna, the 2005 Will “was

                                      -3-
J-S05035-24

executed as a result of fraud and/or forgery.” Id. at ¶ 37. She referenced,

inter alia, John’s criminal charges and convictions, and claimed John “forced,

threatened, and abused” Marjorie to compel Marjorie’s execution of

Decedent’s 2005 Will for John’s “own financial gain.” Id. at ¶¶ 41-43.

      In addition, Jonna averred that in 2015, she had executed a deed

transferring the Disputed Property to herself and her husband, Ernie Hall. Id.

at ¶ 20 (attaching a copy of the deed as Exhibit G). Jonna asserted that she

and her husband have paid the taxes and made significant improvements on

the Disputed Property. Id. at ¶¶ 21-23 (attaching copies of real estate notices

and tax receipts as Exhibits H & I).

      On March 19, 2021, the trial court issued a rule to show cause. The

court explained:

      The parties then engaged in an extensive discovery process.
      During that process, it was learned that the purported 2005 Will
      was almost certainly a forgery….

             [On June 22, 2022, the trial court held a hearing at which
      Attorney Sepic testified.] On September 27th, 2022, Michelle
      Kelley, Esq., then counsel for [Appellants], filed a Motion for Leave
      to Withdraw Appearance based on her understanding that the
      office of Joel Sansone, Esq.[,] would be assuming representation
      of [Appellants]. This [c]ourt granted Attorney Kelley leave to
      withdraw by Order dated September 29th, 2022.

            On October 7th, 2022, this [c]ourt entered a scheduling
      Order directing that a hearing would be held on November 16th,
      2022. At the time scheduled for the hearing on November 16th,
      2022, … Deanna Istik[, Esq.,] appeared with her client, Jonna [],
      but [Appellants] did not appear, nor did any counsel appear or
      enter an appearance on their behalf. At that time, Attorney Istik
      represented to the [c]ourt that she had contacted Attorney
      Sansone’s office the previous Friday and they indicated that they
      would not be representing [Appellants].

                                       -4-
J-S05035-24

            At the hearing, Attorney Istik moved for the admission of
     multiple exhibits, including an affidavit from Javier Marazita, then
     General Counsel for Electronic Forms, LLC (“eForms”) (Exhibit “7”
     filed on November 17th, 2022). In the affidavit, Marazita states
     that the 2005 Will used the image of a form that had been
     developed and copyrighted specifically for eForms. The earliest
     production of the form would have been in 2016, therefore
     it could not have been in circulation at the time the will was
     purportedly executed in 2005. Marazita did not provide actual
     testimony at the November 16th, 2022 hearing[,] as the affidavit
     was offered and admitted without objection.

           On December 2nd, 2022, Elizabeth Tuttle, Esq.[,] of the Law
     Offices of Joel Sansone[,] entered an appearance for John []. On
     December 8th, 2022, this court issued an Order on the Rule to
     Show Cause, wherein it was decreed, among other things, that
     the 2005 Will was a forgery and that it be stricken from the record.
     That Order further scheduled a hearing on February 13th, 2023, to
     address an award of attorneys’ fees to Jonna [] and a possible
     criminal referral for [Appellants] related to the forgery of the
     [2005 W]ill and statements made in support of the [2005 W]ill to
     the [c]ourt.

            On January 9th, 2023, John [], “pro se individually and as
     Attorney in fact for Marjorie [],” filed a Motion for Reconsideration
     and/or to Vacate Order Dated December 8th, 2022. This [c]ourt
     then issued an Order dated January 12th, 2023, scheduling a
     hearing on the Motion for February 14th, 2023, and directing that
     if reconsideration was determined to be appropriate, the [c]ourt
     would conduct a hearing on the merits at the same time. On
     February 6th, 2023, Elizabeth Tuttle, Esq., filed a Consent Motion
     to Withdraw, averring that John [] had filed the Motion for
     Reconsideration without her knowledge or advice, and further
     averring that she and her client had developed irreconcilable
     differences. The Motion to Withdraw was granted by this [c]ourt
     by Order dated February 9th, 2023, with a specific notation that
     the previously scheduled hearing would not be continued.

           This [c]ourt held the hearing, as scheduled, on February
     14th, 2023. Attorney Istik appeared with her client, Jonna [].
     [Appellants] appeared without counsel. The docket file showed
     no evidence that [Appellants] were served with the October 7th,
     2022 Order that scheduled the November 16th, 2022 hearing[;]
     they said they were not notified, and therefore this [c]ourt ruled
     that reconsideration was appropriate. This [c]ourt then denied

                                     -5-
J-S05035-24

     John[]’s motion to continue[,] and proceeded with the hearing on
     the merits. As this [c]ourt noted at the time, the scheduling order
     issued on January 12th for the February 14th hearing explicitly
     stated that if reconsideration was granted[,] the [c]ourt would
     proceed with the hearing on the merits immediately. Even if
     [Appellants] did not have notice of the November 16, 2022
     hearing, they knew about the evidence proving the [2005] Will
     was a forgery since before Attorney Kelley withdrew on September
     27, 2022, so as of February 14[th], they had had more than four
     months to prepare their response.

           At the hearing, John [] objected to the admission of the
     affidavit of Javier Marazita at the November 16th, 2022 hearing.
     This [c]ourt agreed and ruled that [Appellants’] opportunity to
     object and cross-examine would be honored in the hearing that
     day (2/14/23).       Counsel for Jonna [] proffered Marazita’s
     testimony by phone, and there was no objection, so the [c]ourt
     permitted him to do so. Although John [] objected to the
     admission of Marazita’s affidavit, he made no objection to
     Marazita[’s] testifying.

           Despite the [c]ourt order, and despite knowing of the
     evidence of forgery for at least four months, neither of the
     [Appellants] subpoenaed any witnesses for the hearing.
     John [] did attempt to present various exhibits, which were
     objected to as hearsay or as irrelevant. This [c]ourt did not
     consider the proffered exhibits substantively[,] but received the
     exhibits so the record could reflect the contents. These exhibits
     included an unsigned affidavit from Kim Kaufman, [Decedent’s]
     caregiver (purportedly unable to sign due to COVID); an affidavit
     from Stephanie Matthews; a medical report from Dr. Stacy Sheba;
     and two pages from a real estate listing agreement. None of those
     exhibits addressed the critical forgery issue. Neither of the
     [Appellants] testified on any of the issues involved despite
     the opportunity to do so.

            After the hearing, this [c]ourt considered the entire record
     and entered an Order dated April 24th, 2023, declaring that the
     2005 Will was a forgery and striking it from the record,
     invalidating the deed to John [] dated March 3rd, 2021, and
     awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Jonna [].

TCO 3-7 (emphasis added).

                                    -6-
J-S05035-24

      Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered concise

statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). They present the following issues

for review:

      1. Did Jonna [] have standing to file a will contest of the 2005
      Will?

      2. Should the trial court have recused itself from further
      proceedings after taking ex-parte evidence and argument from
      Jonna [] at the November 16, 2022 evidentiary hearing?

      3. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion
      [in] finding there was clear and convincing evidence to grant the
      will challenge petition?

      4. Should the trial court have disqualified Attorney Deanna Istik
      from representing [Jonna] in the Will contest matter?

Appellants’ Brief at 4.

                                  Discussion

      We review Appellants’ issues mindful of the following:
      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 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.

Est. of A.J.M., --- A.3d ----, 2024 PA Super 4 (Pa. Super. filed Jan. 11, 2024)

(citation omitted).

                                      -7-
J-S05035-24

       Before we consider the merits of Appellants’ issues, we address a

missing transcript. The record includes transcripts from the hearings held on

June 22, 2022 (Attorney Sepic’s testimony), and November 16, 2022 (trial

court’s admitting into evidence the affidavit of Javier Marazita, general counsel

for eForms).1      However, our review is diminished by the absence of the

transcript from the February 14, 2023 hearing.

       According to “the knowledge of the Appellants, the transcript of the

February 14, 2023 hearing was never completed.”           Appellants’ Brief at 9.

Upon inquiry by this Court, the trial court prothonotary confirmed they had

not received a transcript of the February 14, 2023 hearing. Appellants claim

the absence of the transcript constitutes “an obvious break-down” in the court

process, and “substantially handicaps … their ability … to proceed with this

appeal.” Id. at 10. They state:

              Appellants note that after making a written request for a
       copy of the February 14, 2023 hearing transcript and serving it on
       the Fayette County Court Administrator on the designated form
       (which is the required procedure), and after making multiple
       inquiries with that office, Appellants were not advised of a required
       deposit for transcription nor provided with an invoice to pay for
       transcription.

                                           ***

____________________________________________

1 Jonna’s counsel summarized the content of Mr. Marazita’s affidavit, in which

he averred that eForms created the form used for the 2005 Will; the form was
not available in 2005; the form became available in 2016 at the earliest; and
the 2005 Will is fraudulent because “there’s no other place [the form] could
have been found, [the form] is copyrighted to this company specifical[ly,] and
it is verbatim, the exact same form.” N.T., 11/16/22, at 5-6.

                                           -8-
J-S05035-24

            [] Appellants made multiple requests to the Superior Court
      to postpone the briefing schedule in this matter to afford the trial
      [c]ourt time to complete the transcript, which the Superior Court
      granted. However, the continuances were without avail, as the
      Fayette County Court Administrator failed to follow its procedure
      in producing the February 14, 2023 transcript after a proper
      request was made.

Id. at 9-10 (italics omitted).

      We disagree with Appellants’ claim of a breakdown in the court process.

“In general, it is an appellant’s burden to ensure that the certified record

contains   the   documents       reflecting   the   facts   needed   for   review.”

Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717, 722 (Pa. Super. 2007).

      With regard to missing transcripts, the Rules of Appellate
      Procedure require an appellant to order and pay for any
      transcript necessary to permit resolution of the issues
      raised on appeal. Pa.R.A.P.1911(a). … When the appellant or
      cross-appellant fails to conform to the requirements of Rule 1911,
      any claims that cannot be resolved in the absence of the necessary
      transcript or transcripts must be deemed waived for the purpose
      of appellate review. [Commonwealth v.] Williams, 715 A.2d
      [1101,] 1105 [(Pa. 1998)]. It is not proper for either the
      Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the Superior Court to order
      transcripts nor is it the responsibility of the appellate courts to
      obtain the necessary transcripts. Id.

      In the absence of specific indicators that a relevant document
      exists but was inadvertently omitted from the certified record, it
      is not incumbent upon this Court to expend time, effort and
      manpower scouting around judicial chambers or the various
      prothonotaries’ offices of the courts of common pleas for the
      purpose of unearthing transcripts, [or other filings,] that well may
      have been presented to the trial court but never were formally
      introduced   and     made    part    of   the     certified  record.
      Commonwealth v. Blystone, 617 A.2d 778, 783 n.4 (Pa. Super.
      1992).

                                        -9-
J-S05035-24

Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7-8 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc)

(emphasis added).

      Rule 1911 provides:

      (a) General rule. The appellant shall request any transcript
      required under this chapter in the manner and make any
      necessary payment or deposit therefor in the amount and within
      the time prescribed by Rules 4001 et seq. of the Pennsylvania
      Rules of Judicial Administration.

                                      ***

      (c) Form. The request for transcript may be endorsed on,
      incorporated into, or attached to the notice of appeal or other
      document and shall be in substantially the following form:

                                   [Caption]

      A (notice of appeal) (petition for review) (petition for specialized
      review) (other appellate paper, as appropriate) having been filed
      in this matter, the official court reporter is hereby requested to
      produce, certify and file the transcript in this matter in conformity
      with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

      Signature

      (d) Effect of failure to comply. If the appellant fails to take the
      action required by these rules and the Pennsylvania Rules of
      Judicial Administration for the preparation of the transcript, the
      appellate court may take such action as it deems appropriate,
      which may include dismissal of the appeal.

Pa.R.A.P. 1911.

      The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has instructed that when an appellant

“faults the trial court,” and “suggests that there is some obligation to ‘provide’

a ‘complete’ record in the abstract, that obviously is not the case. Rather, the

appellant has a duty to frame what is needed.” Commonwealth v. Lesko,

15 A.3d 345, 410 (Pa. 2011). Our High Court explained:

                                     - 10 -
J-S05035-24

      The plain terms of the Rules contemplate that the parties, who
      are in the best position to know what they actually need for
      appeal, are responsible to take affirmative actions to
      secure transcripts and other parts of the record. See, e.g.,
      Commonwealth v. Steward, 775 A.2d 819, 833 (Pa. Super.
      2001) (noting that it was not the responsibility of the trial court
      to order the notes of transcript of defense counsel’s closing as
      Rule 1911 “makes it abundantly plain that it is the responsibility
      of the [a]ppellant to order all transcripts necessary to the
      disposition of his appeal.”); Commonwealth v. Peifer, 730 A.2d
      489, 492 n.3 (Pa. Super. 1999) (explaining that it is the
      responsibility of the appellant and not the court to provide a
      complete record for review, including any necessary transcripts).
      [An appellant] cannot fault the trial court for his own failures.
      Instead, it is only when an appellant can show that a request
      was made and erroneously denied, which is not the case
      herein, that such a claim would have merit.                    See
      Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268, 284–85 (Pa. 2006).

                                      ***

      Moreover, even when notes of testimony are properly ordered, the
      absence of notes does not generate some instantaneous,
      meritorious claim for relief. Instead, if the initially missing notes
      matter, it becomes a circumstance the appellant or his counsel
      needs to respond to by, for example, ordering notes counsel failed
      to order earlier; or seeking an order of court to have ordered notes
      promptly transcribed, or otherwise made available; or, where
      notes cannot be secured, to take steps to have an equivalent
      picture of the proceeding generated. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a);
      Pa.R.A.P. 1923 (statement in the absence of transcript); Pa.R.A.P.
      1924 (agreed upon statement of the record).

Id. at 410-11.

      There is no documentation of Appellants’ ordering the February 14, 2023

transcript as set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 1911. The certificate of service attached

to Appellants’ notice of appeal includes “The Official Court Reporter of

President Judge Steve Leskinian,” and lists the same address, 61 E. Main

Street, which Appellants list for Judge Leskinian and “the Administrative Office

                                     - 11 -
J-S05035-24

of Fayette County Courts.”     See Notice of Appeal, 5/22/23 (unnumbered

attachment). The record otherwise lacks any reference, request or order to

support Appellants’ claim that they ordered the February 14, 2023 transcript.

      Appellants likewise failed to provide documentation in this Court. In

their first of two requests for extension of time to file their brief, Appellants

state, without further explanation, that the “hearing transcript for the final

hearing, upon which the crux of the trial court’s decision was based, has not

yet been transcribed.” Application for Extension of Time, 8/28/23, at 2. In

their second request, Appellants state:

      [] The Official Court Reporter for the Court of Common Pleas of
      Fayette County has not completed the reproduction of the
      transcript of the final court proceedings from which multiple issues
      arise relative to this appeal.

      [] Having a completed transcript of proceedings is essential to the
      citations to facts within the body of the brief in order to support
      the claims of the Appellants.

Second Application for Extension of Time, 9/26/23, at 2.

      This Court granted both requests for extension of time.         Appellants

subsequently filed their brief containing the above-quoted discussion about

the missing transcript. Appellants’ Brief at 9-10. As noted, Appellants claim

“the continuances were without avail, as the Fayette County Court

Administrator failed to follow its procedure in producing the February 14, 2023

transcript after a proper request was made.”       Id. at 10 (italics omitted).

Appellants disregard their responsibility to procure the transcript. Again, it is

Appellants’ responsibility “to supply this Court with a complete record for

                                     - 12 -
J-S05035-24

purposes of review.” Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622, 623 (Pa. Super. 1993)

(italics in original, citations omitted). Appellants’ “failure to ensure that the

record is complete risks waiver of appellate issues that are dependent on the

missing items.”      Erie Ins. Exch. v. Moore, 175 A.3d 999, 1006-07 (Pa.

Super. 2017), affirmed, 228 A.3d 258 (Pa. 2020).2

       Appellants state that the absence of the February 14, 2023 transcript

impacts “their ability … to proceed with this appeal.” Appellants’ Brief at 10.

The missing transcript also impacts appellate review. The record is sufficient

for this Court to review Appellants’ first issue regarding Jonna’s standing.

However, without the February 14, 2023 transcript, we are unable to review

Appellants’ remaining three issues. As explained below, we are constrained

to find waiver of those three issues. See Smith, 637 A.2d at 623-24 (stating

that the failure “to insure that the original record certified for appeal contains

sufficient information to conduct a proper review constitutes a waiver of the

issue(s) be examined”); Preston, 904 A.2d at 7 (finding that an issue that

cannot be resolved without reference to the missing transcripts is waived for

purposes of appeal).

____________________________________________

2 In addition, Appellants’ “pro se status confers no special benefit.”  Jordan
v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 276 A.3d 751, 761 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations
omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a
legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of
expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Id. “[I]t is well-settled law
that ‘a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.’” Id. at 762 n.3.

                                          - 13 -
J-S05035-24

      Trial Court Recusal

      Appellants assert the trial court erred by failing to recuse from the case

after conducting the November 16, 2022 hearing in Appellants’ absence.

Appellants maintain that the trial court’s “‘do-over’ of the November 16th

hearing on February 14 2023[,] with all parties present[,] in no way ‘cures’

the appearance that the trial [c]ourt is no longer objective or impartial or has

not done [sic] engaged in some impropriety.” Appellants’ Brief at 20.

      Appellants claim they preserved this issue at the February 14, 2023

hearing. Id. at 4. We disagree. Without the transcript, there is no evidence

this issue was preserved. The record does not contain a motion to recuse,

and the docket does not show that Appellants filed a recusal motion. “Issues

not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time

on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). “A party seeking recusal must assert specific

grounds in support of the recusal motion before the trial judge has issued a

ruling on the substantive matter before him or her.” Bowman v. Rand Spear

& Associates, P.C., 234 A.3d 848, 862 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

Our Supreme Court has stated:

      In this Commonwealth, a party must seek recusal of a jurist at the
      earliest possible moment, i.e., when the party knows of the facts
      that form the basis for a motion to recuse. If the party fails to
      present a motion to recuse at that time, then the party’s recusal
      issue is time-barred and waived.

                                     - 14 -
J-S05035-24

Lomas v. Kravitz, 170 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2017). Accordingly, Appellants

have waived their issue regarding recusal.3

       Evidence to Invalidate the 2005 Will

       Appellants also argue the trial court “erred as a matter of law and

abused its discretion in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence

to grant the will challenge petition.”         Appellants’ Brief at 4, 21; id. at 24

(specifying that the trial court erred by concluding that “evidence existed to

find that the [2005] Will was a forgery”). Appellants emphasize that the trial

court “relies heavily on the telephone testimony of Javier Marazita, General

Counsel for eForms, a company that provides estate planning documents to

the public, who testified that the 2005 Will was drafted on an eForms template

that was created in 2016 and was not in circulation in 2005.” Id. at 22 (citing

TCO at 4, 5, 8, 9, 10). Appellants argue:

              First, absent from the 2005 Will was a[n] eForms logo which
       appears on the eForms version of the template. Marazita provided
       no explanation for the absence of the logo. Secondly, Marazita
       claimed that the eForms will template was “copyrighted” but
       provided no evidence of the same. Third, Marazita could only
       testify that the 2005 Will appeared to be on the same form
       produced by eForms. This does not rule out the fact that it could
       have been produced on any form identical to eForms. Fourth,
       Marazita did not provide any information on how eForms creates
       their templates or whether their electronic templates which can

____________________________________________

3 This issue would likely lack merit even if preserved. In response to
Appellants’ Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, the trial court opined that Appellants
“produced no evidence that would call into doubt th[e trial c]ourt’s ability to
preside impartially.” TCO at 15. The court stated it “reviewed the entire
matter and has [no] conflict of interest, and no reason to rule on the basis of
partiality, bias, or ill-will.” Id.

                                          - 15 -
J-S05035-24

       be downloaded from their website existed in any other format
       prior to 2016. Fifth, Marazita did not know if the [D]ecedent
       signed the 2005 Will or when the 2005 Will was signed.

Id. at 22-23 (citing 2005 Will).

       It is undisputed that Mr. Marazita testified at the February 14, 2023

hearing. See id. at 8; TCO at 6. We cannot review Mr. Marazita’s testimony

because the hearing transcript is not in the record. Thus, “there is no basis

on which relief could be granted.” Preston, 904 A.2d at 7. Appellants’ “claim

that cannot be resolved in the absence of the necessary transcript or

transcripts must be deemed waived for the purpose of appellate review.” Id.

(citation omitted).4

____________________________________________

4 Although we cannot review Mr. Marazita’s testimony, the evidence in the
record supports the trial court’s findings. For example, Attorney Sepic testified
that he met with Majorie and her husband, as well as John and Jonna, in 2014.
N.T., 6/22/22, at 17. Attorney Sepic “had multiple meetings with the four
members of the family.” Id. at 34. At that time, the Disputed Property was
still titled in Decedent’s name. Id. at 37. Attorney Sepic testified:
       There was basically a dispute in my office between Jonna and
       [John] over this parcel in particular[; John] claimed that the
       [Disputed P]roperty was his or should be his and was left to him
       by [Decedent], and Jonna disputed that.
Id. at 36. According to Attorney Sepic, Marjorie subsequently asked him to
prepare a deed granting the Disputed Property to Jonna. Id. at 82. On June
6, 2014, Attorney Sepic prepared the deed conveying the Disputed Property
from Marjorie to Jonna. Id. at 45, 47, 82. He testified that in 2014, he did
not know about the 2005 Will, and “no will [was] ever presented to” him. Id.
at 44; 54. Attorney Sepic had no further involvement with the Disputed
Property until 2021, when Appellants contacted him about probating the 2005
Will. Id. at 61. Attorney Sepic stated, “that was the first time I was made
aware of it.” Id. at 62. He repeated: “As of 2014, when I prepared the deed
from [Marjorie] to Jonna [], I didn’t see a will.” Id. at 75.

                                          - 16 -
J-S05035-24

       Disqualification of Counsel

       Appellants argue the trial court “should have disqualified [Jonna’s

counsel,] Attorney Deanna Istik[,] from representing [Jonna] in the Will

contest matter.” Appellants’ Brief at 4. Appellants claim they preserved this

issue at the February 14, 2023 hearing. Id. They state:

             At the February 14, 2023 hearing, [] John [] objected to
       Attorney Istik’s representation of [] Jonna [] on the basis that she
       prepared a deed from Jonna Hall to Jonna Hall and her husband,
       creating an entireties estate. [] John [] further objected because
       Attorney Istik purportedly claimed to the Fayette County Tax
       Claim Bureau that she probated a will for the [D]ecedent when
       the same was purportedly false, as there is no evidence of any
       other will being probated for the [D]ecedent at any time other
       than the 2005 Will.

             Appellants assert that Attorney Istik was a necessary
       witness under Rule 3.7 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional
       Conduct, on the issue of the basis for the purportedly false
       representations made to the Tax Claim Bureau and the creation of
       the subsequent deed.

Id. at 24.5

____________________________________________

5 Appellants additionally claim:

       There is also[] after-discovered evidence that Attorney Istik’s
       husband[,] a Pennsylvania State Trooper then stationed at the
       Uniontown Barracks, conducted an investigation into criminal
       allegations made by Appellants [] in 2016 against [] Jonna [] and
       her then attorney, Deanna Istik (who was the purported fiancé of
       Trooper Istik at the time)[,] relating [sic] the property dispute
       allegations which are intertwined with this action, and that
       Trooper Istik purportedly failed to take the appropriate action on
       the complaint.
Appellants’ Brief at 25. In conducting review, this Court “rel[ies] only on facts
and documents in the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Rush, 959 A.2d
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 17 -
J-S05035-24

       Because the February 14, 2023 transcript is not in the record, we are

unable to confirm Appellants’ preservation of the issue before the trial court.

Preston, 904 A.2d at 7. However, even if preserved, we would find waiver

because Appellants have not substantiated or developed their argument. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b) (requiring that the argument include “discussion and

citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”); see also In re Est. of

Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“This Court will not consider

the merits of an argument which fails to cite relevant case or statutory

authority.”). Consequently, Appellants’ undeveloped argument and “[f]ailure

to cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal.” See

id.6

       Standing

       Finally, we address the merits of Appellants’ issue challenging Jonna’s

standing. Appellants claim Jonna lacked standing to contest the 2005 Will

____________________________________________

945, 949 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). “This Court does not rely on
items dehors the record, such as assertions in an appellate brief.” Id.
6 Even if not waived, this issue appears meritless.      The trial court indicates
that John objected to Attorney Istik’s representation of Jonna at the February
14, 2023 hearing. TCO at 12. However, the trial court found John “offered
no details in support of his objection, and the record does not reflect what he
is referring to.” Id. The trial court states, “although John [] claims [Attorney]
Istik would be a necessary witness, he did not call her as a witness during the
hearing.” Id. at 13. Moreover, John “presented no evidence of any unethical
behavior that would support disqualification[.]” Id. at 13-14.

                                          - 18 -
J-S05035-24

because she was not “entitled to inherit from the Decedent’s estate.”

Appellants’ Brief at 14. Appellants argue:

             There is no evidence that Appellee, Jonna [], is identified as
      a beneficiary under either the 2005 Will or the 1999 Will of which
      she purportedly had possession. While in 2014 she may have
      gained some potential interest in the [Disputed Property,] at the
      time of the probate of the 2005 Will due to her mother, Marjorie
      [], deeding her interest in the [Disputed Property] to Jonna [] at
      that time[,] Jonna [] did not have any interest in the [Disputed
      Property] under either the 2005 Will or the purported 1999 Will at
      the time of [D]ecedent’s death.

            The case law is clear that in order to have standing to
      contest a Will[, Jonna] must have been entitled [to] participate in
      the [D]ecedent’s estate.

Id. at 13-14 (citing In re Luongo, 823 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

      Jonna and the trial court also cite In re Luongo. See Appellee’s Brief

at 22; TCO at 7. Jonna argues the “law regarding standing is very clear,” and

provides her with standing because of her pecuniary interest in the Disputed

Property. Appellee’s Brief at 19. Jonna observes that if the 2005 Will “was

found to be valid, then her interests and rights regarding the [Disputed

Property] would ultimately be affected.” Id. We agree.

      This Court in In re Luongo explained:
      As a general rule, a party must have standing to contest probate
      of a decedent’s will. In will contests, the right to an appeal is
      statutory as is the designation of the parties on whom the right is
      conferred, and is defined at Section 908 of the [Probate], Estates
      and Fiduciaries Code [(PEF Code)].

In re Luongo, 823 A.2d at 953 (citation omitted).

      The PEF Code provides that any “party in interest seeking to challenge

the probate of a will or who is otherwise aggrieved by a decree of the register,

                                     - 19 -
J-S05035-24

or a fiduciary whose estate or trust is so aggrieved, may appeal therefrom to

the court[.]” 20 Pa.C.S. § 908(a). “In essence, a party has the requisite

standing to contest a will when that party is aggrieved by a judgment, decree

or order of the register, in the sense that some pecuniary interest of that

party has been ‘injuriously affected.’”       In re Est. of Luongo, supra

(emphasis in original, citation omitted).

      Jonna explains:
            While [she] was not a direct beneficiary of either of the Wills
      purported to be in existence, [Jonna] does have a pecuniary
      interest in whether the [2005 Will] is entered into probate or
      declared a forgery. The record is clear that Jonna [] is the
      granddaughter of the [D]ecedent []. [Jonna] is not the direct
      beneficiary under either Will, nor would she take under intestate
      succession, as her mother, Marjorie [], is still alive and a party to
      this matter. However, Marjorie [] [previously] conveyed her
      interest in the [same Disputed P]roperty, the only item to
      be conveyed and/or awarded under the [2005 Will], to her
      daughter, Jonna [], on June 6, 2014.

Appellee’s Brief at 22-23 (emphasis added). For nearly a decade, Jonna and

her husband have held title to the Disputed Property. They have paid the

property taxes, made improvements, and eventually rented the Disputed

Property.    See Petition at ¶¶ 21-23; N.T., 6/22/22, at 8.      The trial court

concluded:

      Jonna [] clearly has a pecuniary interest in whether the 2005 Will
      is entered into probate or declared a forgery.         Marjorie []
      conveyed her entire interest in the [Disputed] Property to Jonna
      [] via the 2014 Deed. However, a grantor cannot convey title to
      property greater than what they own. Starling v. Lake Meade
      Property Owners Association, Inc., 162 A.3d 327, 338 (Pa.
      2017). There are at least three possible scenarios under which
      the [D]ecedent’s estate might be administered, each of which
      results in a different interest being conveyed to Jonna [] through

                                     - 20 -
J-S05035-24

      the 2014 Deed. If the 2005 Will is probated and valid, Jonna []
      would not have received any interest in the [D]isputed Property
      through the 2014 Deed. If the 2005 Will is invalidated, then at
      the time of the 2014 Deed, Marjorie [] owned, and therefore
      conveyed, either a fee simple interest in the [Disputed P]roperty
      (as the sole beneficiary of the 1999 Will) or a fractional interest
      (under intestate succession, as Marjorie [] has other siblings).
      Thus, Jonna [] not only has an interest in the 2005 Will contest,
      she also has a pecuniary interest as to whether the estate should
      be administered under the 1999 Will or by intestate succession if
      the 2005 Will is invalidated.

TCO at 7-8.    We discern no error, as the record and law support the

determination that Jonna had standing to contest the 2005 Will.

      In sum, we conclude that Appellants’ standing issue lacks merit, and we

find waiver as to Appellants’ remaining three issues.

      Order affirmed.

DATE: 03/28/2024

                                    - 21 -