Court Opinion

ID: 9953198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 16:14:31.155951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:45.192701
License: Public Domain

J-S02019-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: G.A.T., AN ALLEGED                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  INCAPACITATED PERSON                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: E.D.T. AND T.T. A                 :
  MINOR                                        :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 962 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered March 15, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s):
                                1516-0786

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                               FILED MARCH 21, 2024

       E.D.T. and T.T., a minor (Appellants), appeal from the orphans’ court’s

order appointing a co-guardian of the Estate of G.A.T. (hereafter, “G.”), an

incapacitated person, which specified the co-guardian’s duties, powers, and

compensation. After careful review, we affirm.

       In a related matter, the orphans’ court summarized the relevant history

underlying this appeal:

       [Diane M. Cloud] is Guardian of the Estate of [G.] pursuant to the
       order entered September 27, 2016 by the Honorable John L.
       Hall.[FN1] [Donald F. Kohler, Jr., Esquire,] is her attorney. On July
       15, 2022, [Cloud and Attorney Kohler (Petitioners)] filed their
       Petition for the Allowance of Attorneys’ Fees alleging that the
       Estate’s current and outstanding obligations have been paid and
       that the balance of the two (2) accounts in the Estate totals
       $859,725.01. Petition, 7/15/2022, 11-12. Petitioners sought
       from the Estate legal fees and costs totaling $23,621.00 for the
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S02019-24

     period from October 20, 2020[,] to June 28, 2022.        Petition,
     7/15/2022, 14.

     [FN1] Ms. Cloud is not guardian of [G.’s] person. [G.] was not

     adjudicated to be incapacitated as to his person, only as to
     his estate.

            On August 17, 2022, [Appellants] filed their Opposition to
     Petition Filed 07/15/2022 for Attorneys’ Fees. [Appellants] are
     the sons of Jerry Toth[,] who is [G.’s] brother[,] and thus
     [Appellants] are [G.’s] nephews.[FN2] [Appellants] asked [the
     orphans’] court to deny the Petition in its entirety because
     “[Attorney] Kohler represents Cloud personally and not [G.]”
     Opposition, 8/17/2022. See also Opposition, 8/17/22, ¶¶ 48-49

     ….

           On December 1, 2022, Petitioners filed a second Petition for
     the Allowance of Attorneys’ Fees[,] which updated the one filed
     July 15, 2022. Petitioners requested an additional $7,872.50 for
     [Attorney] Kohler’s legal services and costs from July 1, 2022[,]
     to December 5, 2022.

     [FN2][Appellants were] represented by Jerry Toth, who is their
     father and a licensed attorney.

           On December 6, 2022, [the orphans’] court held a hearing
     on the Petitions and the Opposition and entered [an order]. That
     order did two (2) things. First, it dismissed the Opposition filed
     by [Appellants] on August 17, 2022[,] “for lack of standing and in
     the alternative pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.” Order,
     12/6/2022, p. 1. Second, it granted the Petition and authorized
     the Estate to “compensate Donald F. Kohler, Jr., Esquire for
     reasonable counsel fees and costs in the amount of $31,465.00.”
     Order, 12/6/2022, p. 1.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 3/20/23, at 1-3 (emphasis added, some footnotes

omitted).

                                   -2-
J-S02019-24

      The orphans’ court conducted a review hearing on March 15, 2023. At

that time, with G.’s approval, the court appointed Kristen R. Matthews,

Esquire, as co-guardian of G.’s estate. N.T., 3/15/23, at 4. The orphans’

court issued the following order that same day:

      1. Kristen R. Matthews, Esquire[,] is appointed co-guardian of the
         Estate of [G.] to serve at an hourly rate of $275.00 per hour,[FN]

      2. Ms. Matthews’s duties include but are not limited to reviewing
         financial papers previously filed in this case and filing amended
         papers together with co-guardian Diane Cloud, as appropriate,

      3. The co-guardians are authorized to pay down from principal all
         outstanding indebtedness owed on [G.’s] motor vehicle up to
         the amount of $23,000; and

      4. A review hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, May 25, 2023 ….

      [FN] Ms. Matthews shall obtain and file of record proof of criminal

      clearance within ten (10) days of the entry of this order.

Orphans’ Court Order, 3/15/23 (footnote in original).

      Appellants timely appealed the orphans’ court’s March 15, 2023, order.

The orphans’ court did not direct Appellants to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of matters complained of on appeal. Notwithstanding, the court

filed an opinion explaining its ruling.

      Appellants’ brief includes no statement of questions involved, as

required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(4). Appellate Rule 2116(a) provides as follows:

   (a) General rule. The statement of the questions involved must state
   concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in the terms and
   circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail. The
   statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary question fairly
   comprised therein. No question will be considered unless it is

                                          -3-
J-S02019-24

    stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly
    suggested thereby. Each question shall be followed by an answer
    stating simply whether the court or government unit agreed,
    disagreed, did not answer, or did not address the question. If a
    qualified answer was given to the question, appellant shall indicate
    the nature of the qualification, or if the question was not answered
    or addressed and the record shows the reason for such failure, the
    reason shall be stated briefly in each instance without quoting the
    court or government unit below.

Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (emphasis added).              We could deem Appellants’ issues

waived for failure to include a statement of questions involved in their brief.

See Krebs v. United Ref. Co., 893 A.2d 776, 779 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“We

will not ordinarily consider any issue if it has not been set forth in or suggested

by an appellate brief’s statement of questions involved, Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a),

and any issue not raised in a statement of matters complained of on appeal is

deemed waived.”). We decline to do so.

       Appellants argue (1) they have standing to seek “guardianship review”,

Appellants’ Brief at 15; (2) the orphans’ court proceeding on March 15, 2023,

“is tightly intertwined with the matter on appeal, a self-dealing guardian, an

incapacitated person without loyal representation”, id. at 19; and (3) “[a]n

error of law has been committed” regarding G.’s mental capacity to waive an

attorney’s conflicts of interest.1 Id. at 36.

____________________________________________

1
 In his Reply Brief, Appellant argues that G.’s attorney, in the litigation related
to his mother’s estate, had a conflict of interest. Reply Brief at 14. Regarding
the instant appeal, Appellant argues, “Representation of [G.] by an attorney
opposing [G.’s] interests failed to protect the interests of … [G.]” Reply Brief
at 18. Appellant further disputes G.’s mental capacity. Id. at 20-21.

                                           -4-
J-S02019-24

       The orphans’ court opined Appellants had failed to preserve any issues

for review:

       Jerry Toth, Esquire[, Appellants’ father and counsel,] filed no
       motion, objection, etc., on behalf of [Appellants] prior to the
       review hearing and failed to appear at the review hearing held
       March 15, 2023. “Pennsylvania law is clear that claims and
       objections that are not timely made are waived.” Steiner v.
       Markel, 968 A.2d 1253, 1257 (Pa. 2009) (citing Takes v.
       Metropolitan Edison Co., 695 A.2d 397, 401 (Pa. 1997)
       (applying the rule of waiver in the context of trial objections).

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/21/23, at 1 (footnote omitted).2 We agree.

       It is axiomatic that claims not raised in the lower court may not be

raised for the first time on appeal. In re S.C.B., 990 A.2d 762, 767 (Pa.

Super. 2010); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

       In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must
       make a timely and specific objection at the appropriate stage of
       the proceedings before the trial court. Failure to timely object to
       a basic and fundamental error will result in waiver of that
       issue. On appeal the Superior Court will not consider a claim
       which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when
       any error committed could have been corrected. … [O]ne must
       object to errors, improprieties[,] or irregularities at the earliest
       possible stage of the adjudicatory process to afford the jurist
       hearing the case the first occasion to remedy the wrong and
       possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal to complain of the matter.

S.C.B., 990 A.2d at 767 (quoting Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d 474,

475-76 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted)).

____________________________________________

2 The orphans’ court further determined that Appellants lacked standing and

cited in support its opinion filed in the appeal at No. 146 EDA 2023. Orphans’
Court Opinion, 6/21/23, at 2. In that appeal, Appellants challenge the
orphans’ court’s order granting Petitioners’ request for attorneys’ fees.

                                           -5-
J-S02019-24

      Instantly, Attorney Matthews testified at the hearing regarding her

qualifications for appointment as co-guardian of G.’s estate. N.T., 3/15/23,

at 5, 6-7. Attorney Matthews explained that she previously had acted as G.’s

attorney when she drafted his will. Id. at 7. Attorney Matthews confirmed

her awareness of the potential conflicts caused by her prior representation of

G. Id.     She explained, “I would not serve as co-guardian if there was a

conflict. I don’t believe there is a conflict and if there is one, I believe it’s G.’s

to waive.” Id. at 9.

      G. also testified at the hearing:

      [Guardian’s Counsel:] … Would you like to tell the [c]ourt how
      you feel about [Attorney] Matthews being appointed as co-
      guardian?

      [G.:] I think she’s a wonderful candidate. She came from a
      wonderful school, Villanova. I read her dossier. She’s good as a
      lawyer, … a lawyer as [sic] a guardian. So she has all these
      aspects that we’re hiring for, so why can’t we hire her. I have no
      means to use her as a demeaning way to get evil on anyone. But
      I will protect my interests. Ms. Cloud needs the help as much as
      anybody and she’d be a great asset to Ms. Cloud and that’s all that
      matters right now.

      ….

      [Steve Potts, Esquire (G.’s counsel)]: [G.], did you ever meet
      with [Attorney Matthews] about her being co-guardian?

      [G.:] Not personally. I never went over to see her about it. I just
      wrote her a letter. I said we’d like you to be a lawyer or a lawyer
      of the guardian, that it’s a wonderful idea to work with the dream
      team: Steve Potts, [Attorney] Kohler, [Attorney] Matthews, and
      Ms. Cloud. This is the dream team.

                                        -6-
J-S02019-24

     Q. … Do you understand that if she acts as co-guardian in that
     role, she wouldn’t be acting as your attorney if she was acting as
     co-guardian[?]

     A. You are my attorney, Steve Potts. And you only are my
     attorney. I’m not going to use her as a lawyer unless she breaks
     a leg or something. But only in emergencies we would use her.
     But I just wanted her, she did successfully write my will, and
     successfully she will be a good co-guardian. Ms. Cloud needs all
     the help she can get, and that’s all I can say.

Id. at 16-18. No one expressed concerns, objected to Attorney Matthews’s

appointment, or challenged G.’s capacity to waive potential conflicts and

approve the appointment.

     The record reflects G.’s interests were represented at the hearing, and

he personally approved the appointment of Attorney Matthews as co-guardian.

As Appellants failed to preserve any issues for appellate review, they are

waived on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

     Order affirmed.

     P.J.E. Stevens joins the memorandum.

     P.J. Lazarus concurs in the result.

Date: 3/21/2024

                                    -7-