Michalczik, M. v. Estate of Hoehn, R.

J-A01036-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MICHAEL MICHALCZIK, GARY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MICHALCZIK, ED MICHALCZIK, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants
v.
ESTATE OF ROSE HOEHN,
Appellee No. 685 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered March 13, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
Orphans' Court, at No(s): 297-2012
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE, and ALLEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN: FILED DECEMBER 17, 2014
Michael, Gary, and Ed Michalczik, (“Appellants”), appeal from the trial
court’s order denying their petition to invalidate the last will and testament
of their deceased aunt, Rose Hoehn, which was filed by the Estate of Rose
Hoehn, (“Estate”). We find that Appellants’ issues are waived due to their
defective appellate brief, and thus affirm the trial court’s order.
The trial court presented the following factual and procedural
background relative to this action:
On July 6, 2012, Marlene Gresh Schroeck filed a Petition
for Probate and Grant of Letters offering for probate an October
2, 2010 Last Will and Testament of decedent Rose Hoehn, date
of death June 21, 2012. By a July 6, 2012 Decree of the
Register [of Wills], Letters Testamentary were granted to
Marlene Gresh Schroeck[,] and the October 2, 2010 Last Will
and Testament was admitted to probate and filed of record as
decedent’s Last Will. [FN1: On January 16, 2013, Marlene
[Gresh] Schroeck filed a Resignation, resigning as Executrix of
J-A01036-15
the Estate. The Register of Wills, on February 7, 2013, issued a
Certificate of Grant of [Letters] [to Charles F. Gresh] designating
Charles F. Gresh as the Administrator D.B.N.C.T.A. [of the
Estate]. The February 7, 2013 [Certificate of Grant of Letters]
did not change the [October 2, 2010] instrument admitted to
probate.]
More than one and one-half years later, on February 6,
2014, [Appellants] filed their Petition to Invalidate [the Last Will
and Testament of Rose Hoehn]. The Petition to Invalidate
alleges that decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that she
was the subject of undue influence and fraud. All allegations
relate to the undue influence of Marlene Gresh Schroeck over the
decedent. Following a March 13, 2014 hearing, this Court issued
its order of the same date denying said Petition.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/30/14, at 1. On April 11, 2014, Appellants filed their
notice of appeal. The trial court and Appellants complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
Appellants present the following issues for our review:
1. Is the Petition to Invalidate the Last Will and Testament of
Rose Hoehn time barred pursuant to Section 908 of the
Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code?
2. Whether the Petition to Invalidate the Last Will and
Testament of Rose Hoehn should be denied as time barred?
3. Have the Appellants produced unrefutable [sic] evidence
concerning the fraudulent acts committed by the
Executors/Power of Attorneys?
4. Have the Executors used their position to practice fraud upon
the Register of Wills by filing an Estate depleted of value and
using the Will itself as the document to validate their illegal
acts?
Appellants’ Brief at 6.
Appellants’ issues challenge the trial court’s application of “Section 908
of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code” to deny as time-barred
-2-
J-A01036-15
Appellants’ petition to invalidate the decedent’s last will and testament. See
id. “Statutory interpretation ‘is a question of law and, as such, our standard
of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.’” J.C.B. v.
Pennsylvania State Police, 35 A.3d 792, 794 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal
citation omitted). However, after careful review of Appellants’ woefully
inadequate brief, we find that Appellants’ issues are waived and we decline
to reach them.
In finding that an appellant’s issues had been waived for appellate
review:
[W]e observe Rule 2119(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure provides:
Rule 2119. Argument
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as
many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall
have at the head of each part—in distinctive type or in
type distinctively displayed—the particular point treated
therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Additionally, Rule 2101 makes clear:
Rule 2101. Conformance with Requirements
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as
the circumstances of the particular case will admit,
otherwise they may be suppressed, and, if the defects are
in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or
dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
-3-
J-A01036-15
discussion and citation of pertinent authorities.” Estate of
Lakatosh, 441 Pa.Super. 133, 656 A.2d 1378, 1381 (1995).
“This Court will not consider the merits of an argument which
fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority.” Iron Age Corp.
v. Dvorak, 880 A.2d 657, 665 (Pa.Super.2005). Failure to cite
relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim on
appeal. Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305 (Pa.Super.2003),
appeal denied, 576 Pa. 712, 839 A.2d 352 (2003).
Instantly, Appellants failed to cite any legal authority to
support their single-paragraph argument on this issue.
Appellants' failure in this respect waives the issue for purposes
of review. See Iron Age Corp., supra; Eichman, supra; Pa.R.A.P.
2101; 2119(a).
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209-210 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(emphasis in original).
Here, in cursory fashion, Appellant’s address their four issues in three
(3) pages and three (3) lines of argument. See Appellants’ Brief at 11-14.
Appellants’ argument does not contain a single citation to any legal authority
or case law. See id. Indeed, Appellants’ brief does not include a table of
citations or authorities. Appellants’ failure to set forth any jurisprudence in
furtherance of their arguments violates our rules of appellate procedure and
effects waiver of their claims. See Whitley, supra, at 209-210; see also
Commonwealth v. Fransen, 42 A.3d 1100, 1116 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Order affirmed. Case struck from the January 7, 2015 argument list.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
-4-
J-A01036-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/17/2014
-5-