In Re: Estate of Destefano, D. ( 2017 )

J-S54014-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF DANIEL L. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DESTEFANO : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: ESTATE OF DANIEL :
DESTEFANO :
:
:
: No. 72 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order December 8, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): OC 2014-0146
BEFORE: OTT, J., MOULTON, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 15, 2017
This appeal is brought by the “Estate of David [sic1] DeStefano” (“the
Estate”) from the order entered December 8, 2016, in the Court of Common
Pleas of Crawford County. The orphans’ court’s December 8, 2016, order
resolved exceptions to the Master’s Report, which was issued after
objections were filed by the estate of the sole heir of Daniel DeStefano
(Decedent) to the First and Final Account, filed by Cindy Lou Baker,
Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel L. DeStefano (Administratrix). In this
appeal, the Estate challenges (1) the reduction of the commission of
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
This case is captioned in the orphans’ court as “In re: Estate of Daniel
DeStefano,” but the notice of appeal inadvertently misstates the first name
of the decedent. We have corrected the caption of this appeal.
J-S54014-17
Administratrix, (2) the reduction of the fee charged by Thomas Ruth,
Esquire, the attorney for the Estate, (3) the surcharge imposed on the
Administratrix for “loss on the sale of vehicle” and related storage fee, (4)
the surcharge imposed on the Administratrix for a tax preparation fee
charged by her business, H & R Block, and (5) the surcharge imposed on the
Administratrix for “the loss of the value of equipment.” Order, 12/8/2016.
Based upon the following, we quash this appeal.
The facts and procedural history are fully set forth in the Orphans’
Court Opinion. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 12/8/2016, at 1–4. Briefly, we
reiterate:
Daniel L. DeStefano died on July 22, 2012. Letters of
Administration for his estate were granted August 14, 2012 to
Cindy Lou Baker by the Register of Wills of Crawford County.
The decedent’s sole heir was his mother, Elizabeth I. DeStefano,
who then died on March 10, 2013, and on September 25, 2013
the Register of Wills of Blair County, Pennsylvania appointed her
daughter, Jeanine Decker as the Administratrix of the Estate of
Elizabeth I. DeStefano.
On February 5, 2015 the Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel L.
DeStefano filed a First and Final Account which accounted for the
period from August 14, 2012 through January 5, 2015.
On May 18, 2015 Jeanine Decker as the Administratrix of the
Estate of Elizabeth I. DeStefano filed objections to the First and
Final Account of the Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel L.
DeStefano[.]
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 12/8/2016, at 1.
-2-
J-S54014-17
Following the filing of a Master’s Report, and the parties’ exceptions
thereto, the orphans’ court conducted oral argument and concluded, “It is
abundantly clear the Estate of Daniel L. DeStefano was mishandled by the
Administratrix and the attorney for the estate.” Id. at 3. Consistent with its
determination, the orphans’ court entered the order under appeal, reducing
the commission of the Administratrix of the Estate, reducing the fees of Mr.
Ruth, and imposing surcharges on the Administratrix. The orphans’ court
ordered Administratrix and Mr. Ruth to make repayments and
reimbursements to the Estate, ordered Administratrix to pay the specified
surcharge amounts, and removed Administratrix from administering the
Estate and removed Mr. Ruth from representation of the Estate. See Order,
12/8/2016.
At the outset, we consider the issue of standing of the Estate to bring
this appeal. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 501 provides in
relevant part that “any party who is aggrieved by an appealable order, or a
fiduciary whose estate or trust is so aggrieved, may appeal therefrom.”
Pa.R.A.P. 501. Therefore,
only a party who has been aggrieved by an appealable order
may appeal to this Court. Pa.R.A.P. 501; Commonwealth v.
Polo, 563 Pa. 218, 759 A.2d 372, 373 n. 1 (2000) citing In re
Elliott's Estate, 388 Pa. 321, 131 A.2d 357, 358 (1957).
This Court has consistently held that for purposes of
Pa.R.A.P. 501, “[a] party is ‘aggrieved’ when the party
has been adversely affected by the decision from which
the appeal is taken. A prevailing party is not ‘aggrieved’
and therefore, does not have standing to appeal an order
-3-
J-S54014-17
that has been entered in his or her favor." Ratti v.
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 2000 Pa. Super. 239,
758 A.2d 695, 700 (Pa. Super. 2000); see Clairton
Corp. v. Chicago Title Ins., 438 Pa. Super. 488, 652
A.2d 916, 921 (1995); Green v. SEPTA, 380 Pa. Super.
268, 551 A.2d 578 (1988). Although a prevailing party
may disagree with the trial court's legal reasoning or
findings of fact, the prevailing party's interest is not
adversely affected by the trial court's ultimate order
because the prevailing party was meritorious in the
proceedings below. Almeida v. W.C.A.B. (Herman
Goldner Co.), 844 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004);
ACS Enters. v. Norristown Borough Zoning Hearing
Bd., 659 A.2d 651, 654 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995);
Middletown Township v. Pa. Public Util. Com., 85 Pa.
Cmwlth. 191, 482 A.2d 674, 685 (1984).
In re J.G., 2009 Pa. Super. 217, 984 A.2d 541, 546 (Pa. Super.
2009), appeal denied, 605 Pa. 715, 991 A.2d 313 (2010).
Estate of Pendergrass, 26 A.3d 1151, 1154 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Instantly, the appeal is taken by the Estate.2 However, the Estate has
not been adversely affected by the orphans’ court’s December 8, 2016
____________________________________________
2
The notice of appeal, filed by Mr. Ruth, reads:
Notice is hereby given that the Estate of David [sic] DeStefano,
captioned above [i.e., In Re: Estate of Daniel L. DeStefano, No.
OC 2014–0146, Orphans’ Court] hereby appeals to the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania from the order Entered in this matter on
the 8th of December 2016.
This Order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the
attached copy of the docket entry.
Notice of Appeal, 1/6/2017.
-4-
J-S54014-17
order.3 To the contrary, the Administratrix and the attorney for the Estate
have been ordered to refund the Estate. Importantly, only the
Administratrix and the attorney for the Estate are aggrieved by the order of
the orphans’ court.4 Accordingly, we quash the appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/15/2017
____________________________________________
3
In fact, “[t]here is no such legal entity as an ‘estate.’” In re Harrisburg
Tr. Co., 80 Pa. Super. 585,587 (1923).
4
We note the position of Appellee that “Neither the Administratrix nor
Attorney Ruth have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903(a), which require
that an aggrieved party file a notice of appeal in the lower court within thirty
(30) days of the issuance of an appealable order.” Appellee’s Brief at 11.
-5-