In Re: The Estate of Mumma, R. ( 2023 )

J-A09016-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MUMMA : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II :
:
:
:
: No. 74 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered December 6, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 21-86-0398
IN RE: THE ESTATE OF ROBERT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MUMMA : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II :
:
:
:
: No. 75 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered December 6, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 21-86-0398
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED: MARCH 22, 2023
Appellant, Robert M. Mumma, II, appeals two orders entered in the
Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
on December 6, 2021. We are constrained to quash this appeal as untimely.
Because our disposition turns on a limited set of facts, we recite only a
distilled history of this long-running dispute. Robert M. Mumma (Mumma, Sr.)
died testate on April 12, 1986. Two testamentary trusts, a marital trust and
J-A09016-23
a residual trust, were created under the terms of his will. Letters testamentary
on Mumma, Sr.’s estate were granted to Barbara McK. Mumma (the widow of
Mumma, Sr. and hereinafter “B.M. Mumma”) and Lisa M. Morgan (one of
Mumma, Sr.’s daughters and hereinafter “Ms. Morgan”), to serve as
co-executrixes and co-trustees.
B.M. Mumma died in July 2010 and Ms. Morgan became the sole trustee
of the marital and residual trusts. On June 7, 2019, Ms. Morgan filed a petition
seeking the Orphans’ Court’s approval to combine the marital and residual
trusts. Over Appellant’s objections, the Orphans’ Court approved Ms.
Morgan’s proposal to combine the trusts.
On July 27, 2021, Ms. Morgan filed the two petitions giving rise to the
present appeals. Without going into unnecessary detail, both petitions
requested court approval to withhold distributions from the combined trust.
On August 2, 2021, the Orphans’ Court issued rules to show cause for both
petitions filed by Ms. Morgan and Appellant responded in opposition to both
petitions. Later, the Orphans’ Court scheduled hearings on Ms. Morgan’s
petitions for December 2, 2021.
Appellant failed to appear at the December 2nd hearings. Nevertheless,
the proceedings went forward, and the Orphans’ Court granted both petitions.
The orders granting Ms. Morgan’s petitions were recorded in the docket on
December 6, 2021 and notice of the orders was provided that same day
-2-
J-A09016-23
pursuant to Orphans’ Court Rule 4.6. Appellant filed two notices of appeal
challenging the Orphans’ Court’s orders on January 6, 2022.1
The timeliness of an appeal concerns our appellate jurisdiction, and we
may raise the issue sua sponte. See Commonwealth v. Andre, 17 A.3d
951, 957–958 (Pa. Super. 2011). To lodge a timely appeal from a final order,
“the notice . . . shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from
which the appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). “[Under our appellate rules,
the date of entry of an order] shall be the day the clerk of the court [] mails
or delivers copies of the order to the parties[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1).
Here, the Orphans’ Court entered the orders challenged on appeal on
December 6, 2021, when notice of the December 2, 2021 orders was issued
to the parties pursuant to Orphans’ Court Rule 4.6. As such, the 30-day
appeal period began to run on December 6, 2021, and Appellant needed to
file his notices of appeal no later than January 5, 2022. Appellant concedes
that he filed his notices of appeal on January 6, 2022, one day after the appeal
period lapsed.2 See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2. Because Appellant failed to
file timely notices of appeal, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of
Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, we quash.
____________________________________________
1 Both Appellant and the Orphans’ Court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
2 Appellant asks this Court to excuse his untimely filings, claiming that he
relied upon erroneous advice from an individual in the clerk’s office. See
Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2-3. We decline this invitation.
-3-
J-A09016-23
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/22/2023
-4-