In Re: G. Bush, Appeal of: Bush, M. ( 2023 )

J-A17012-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
IN RE: GENEVIEVE BUSH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: MARY BUSH :
:
:
:
:
: No. 2657 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered September 20, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 1509-1720
BEFORE: KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED AUGUST 28, 2023
Mary Bush (Bush) appeals pro se from the September 20, 2022 order of
the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) dismissing as moot
her motion for sanctions and objections to the final accounting of the Estate
of Genevieve Bush (Genevieve). We quash the appeal.
Briefly, the instant docket concerns a guardianship that was granted
over Genevieve, Bush’s mother, and has been the subject of substantial
litigation by Bush since its initiation. The guardianship was opened in 2011
and continued through Genevieve’s death in June of 2021. The guardians of
Bush’s person and estate filed the required final accountings in early August
of 2021. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(c)(2) (“Within 60 days of the death of the
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17012-23
incapacitated person . . . the guardian shall file a final report with the court.”).
Bush did not file any objections and approximately three months later, on
November 3, 2021, the trial court entered an order terminating the
guardianship. Notwithstanding the termination, Bush filed objections to the
final accountings on December 23, 2021.
As the trial court explains, at a hearing on September 19, 2022,
regarding Genevieve’s contested will, which was docketed separately, Bush
brought to its attention that pleadings in the instant matter had never been
addressed. Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/22, at 1 n.1. These pleadings were a
motion for sanctions filed on January 8, 2020, and Bush’s objection to the
guardian’s final accounting filed on December 23, 2021. Upon review of the
docket, the trial court discovered that the guardianship had been closed by
final order and dismissed Bush’s two filings as moot. Bush timely appealed
and she and the trial court complied with Pa. R.A.P. 1925.
In its opinion, the trial court explained that it lacked jurisdiction to
consider the substance of the two pleadings because the guardianship had
been terminated more than 30 days prior. Trial Court Opinion, 12/19/22, at
1-2 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 and related cases). We agree. “Except as
otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon notice to the parties
may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry,
notwithstanding the prior termination of any term of court, if no appeal from
such order has been taken or allowed.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505. Unless a trial
-2-
J-A17012-23
court expressly grants a motion for reconsideration within the 30-day period,
it loses jurisdiction to modify or rescind the final order. Mfrs. & Traders
Trust Co. v. Greenville Gastroenterology, SC, 108 A.3d 913, 918 (Pa.
Super. 2015).
Here, the trial court issued an order dismissing the two pleadings as
moot but acknowledged in its opinion pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) that it
lacked jurisdiction to take any action on a case that had been closed by final
order nearly a year prior. “If a court issues an order after statutory time limits
have passed, that order is a legal nullity.” Commonwealth v. Green, 265
A.3d 798, 800 (Pa. Super. 2021), aff'd, 284 A.3d 451 (Pa. 2022). Moreover,
“a legally-null order renders an appeal taken therefrom likewise legally null.”
Id. Accordingly, we quash this appeal.1
Appeal quashed.
____________________________________________
1 If Bush believed it was improper for the trial court to decline to rule on her
pleadings before terminating the guardianship, her remedy was to file a timely
motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal. She failed to do so. Her
objections to the final accounting were filed 50 days after the termination
order was docketed and cannot reasonably be construed as a timely motion
for reconsideration or notice of appeal. See Pa. R.A.P. 903(a) (requiring that
a notice of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order
from which the appeal is taken”).
-3-
J-A17012-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/28/2023
-4-