Estate of Helen A. Goodman

J-S36013-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF HELEN A. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
GOODMAN ALBIE E. GOODMAN, JR. : PENNSYLVANIA
AND SUZANNE STITT :
:
:
v. :
:
:
MATTHEW A. GOODMAN : No. 304 WDA 2020
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 30, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 03-17-0380
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED AUGUST 26, 2020
Appellant, Matthew A. Goodman, appeals from the January 30, 2020
order overruling his objections to the first and final account of the Estate of
Helen A. Goodman (“the Estate”). We affirm.
The orphans’ court accurately summarized the relevant factual and
procedural history of this case as follows.
Helen A. Goodman [the (“Decedent”)] died testate on [June 17,
2017]. Letters of administration . . . were granted by the Register
of Wills to Albie E. Goodman, Jr., [(“Goodman”)], [Appellant], and
Suzanne Stitt [(“Stitt”)] on November 30, 2017. [Appellant,
Goodman, and Stitt] are [Decedent’s] three children and the sole
remaining beneficiaries under her will [as] her husband []
predeceased her in 2006. At the time of her death, [Decedent]
owned a parcel of real property located at 109 Iron Works Street,
Kittanning, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania (the “Property”).
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S36013-20
She also [] possessed certain liquid assets in checking and wealth
management accounts[.]
On November 21, 2018, [Goodman and Stitt, (collectively,
“Appellees”)] filed a petition to direct the Estate to sell [the
Property] to [Goodman]. Attached to the petition [was] a mutual
family agreement (“Family Agreement”) executed among the
three beneficiaries[, which addressed several outstanding issues.]
By orders entered [on] February [5], 2019, and March 1, 2019,
the [orphans’ c]ourt ordered the Estate to conduct among the
three beneficiaries a private sale of the Property by sealed bids.
[Appellees] together submitted the highest bid, and the Property
thereafter was conveyed to them. [Appellees then] filed a first
and final account and petition for adjudication/statement of
proposed distribution pursuant to Pa.O.C. Rule 2.4 on [September
4, 2019,] which accounted for [the] Estate’s] administration
through August 30, 2019 (the “Account”). Thereafter, on
September 19, 2019, [Appellant] filed objections to [the] Account
and [an] answer to [the] petition for adjudication. [Appellant]
lodged the following objections: 1) that [Goodman] owe[d] rent
to the Estate, to be distributed among the three beneficiaries, []
[for the] period of time that he resided on the Property after [the
Decedent’s] death; 2) the Account improperly included attorney’s
fees for work done on behalf of [the] individual heirs rather than
only for work that benefitted the Estate; and 3) that the Account
fail[ed] to both include the value of [the Decedent’s] personal
property and provide for the return [of Appellant’s] personal
property.
[Appellees] filed a response to [Appellant’s] objections, [and]
attached [four] sworn affidavits in which they represented that
[Goodman] resided on the Property at [the Decedent’s] request
and with her consent at the time of her death[. The Appellees
also averred that they had no desire to withhold the Decedent’s
personal property and, if Appellant so desired, he could retain any
items of the Decedent’s personal property, together with any
value they had, at any time.]
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 3/11/20, at *1-4 and *6. (un-paginated) (footnotes
and superfluous capitalization omitted).
-2-
J-S36013-20
Thereafter, the orphans’ court entered an order scheduling a hearing on
Appellant’s objections for November 14, 2019. Orphans’ Court Order,
10/17/19, at 1. Prior to the hearing, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to
compel discovery and a motion for a continuance. The orphans’ court granted
Appellant’s motion to compel discovery, but denied his motion for a
continuance. The court conducted a partial hearing on November 14, 2019.
During the hearing, Appellees’ counsel reiterated that Appellees would
relinquish all of the Decedent’s personal property to Appellant. N.T. Hearing,
11/14/19, at 6-7. Thereafter, Appellant’s counsel again requested a
continuance. Id. at 26. This time, the court granted Appellant’s request and
rescheduled the hearing. Orphans’ Court Order, 11/15/19, at 1. The court
conducted a hearing on January 13, 2020, but ultimately overruled Appellant’s
objections in full on January 30, 2020. Orphans’ Court Opinion and Order,
1/30/20, at 1-6. This timely appeal followed.1
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
I. Did the [orphans’ court] err in entering an order of distribution
whe[n] no account was filed in the [E]state, and whe[n Appellees]
failed to list all the assets being distributed?
II. Did the [orphans’ court] err in failing to include in its order of
distribution the [D]ecedent’s personal property to be distributed
to [Appellant] where there was an admission, made in open court
by [Appellees’] counsel, that no personal property list [was] filed,
____________________________________________
1 Appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 6, 2020. On February 12,
2020, the orphans’ court entered an order directing Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(1). Appellant timely complied. The orphans’ court issued an opinion
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on March 11, 2020.
-3-
J-S36013-20
but that [they] agreed to distribute all of the personal property,
other than the appliances that [went] with the [Property’s] sale,
to [Appellant]?
III. Did the [orphans’ court] err in failing to charge [Goodman] rent
for his continued residence in the [D]ecedent’s home?
IV. Did the [orphans’ court] err in holding the first day of the
[evidentiary] hearing seven days after it granted [Appellant’s]
request for . . . discovery?
V. Did the [orphans’ court] err in allowing [Appellees] to amend their
petition for adjudication [via] a brief filed with the court, without
giving [Appellant] any opportunity to object?
Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.
Appellant’s first three issues relate to the orphans’ court’s decision to
overrule his objections to the first and final account of the Estate. Initially,
we note:
Our standard of review of the findings of an [o]rphans' [c]ourt is
deferential.
When reviewing a decree entered by the [o]rphans' [c]ourt,
this Court must determine whether the record is free from
legal error and the court's factual findings are supported by
the evidence. Because the [o]rphans' [c]ourt sits as the
fact-finder, it determines the credibility of the witnesses
and, on review, we will not reverse its credibility
determinations absent an abuse of that discretion.
However, we are not constrained to give the same deference
to any resulting legal conclusions.
[T]he [o]rphans' [c]ourt decision will not be reversed unless there
has been an abuse of discretion or a fundamental error in applying
the correct principles of law.
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206-207 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal
denied, 69 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks
-4-
J-S36013-20
omitted). “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in
reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the
judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly
unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion
has been abused.” Silver v. Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284, 291 (Pa. Super. 2009)
(en banc), quoting Mencer v. Ruch, 928 A.2d 294, 297 (Pa. Super. 2007).
“Our scope of review is also limited: we determine only whether the court's
findings are based on competent and credible evidence of record.” In re
Estate of Karschner, 919 A.2d 252, 256 (Pa. Super. 2007), quoting In re
Estate of Westin, 874 A.2d 139, 142 (Pa. Super. 2005).
Appellant’s first two appellate issues are interrelated and, as such, we
will address them together. First, Appellant argues that the orphans’ court
erred in entering an order of distribution because Appellees failed to file an
account that separately itemized the personal property of the Decedent. See
Appellant’s Brief at 13-15. Second, Appellant argues that the orphans’ court
erred because it did not include the Decedent’s personal property in its
distribution order. Id. at 15-16. Appellant’s claims lack merit.
Orphans Rule 2.1 states, in relevant part, as follows:
(a) Except where otherwise provided by an order of the court in a
particular matter, Accounts shall be prepared and filed with the
clerk in conformity with the form of the Model Accounts set forth
in the Appendix or in conformity with any other form adopted by
the Supreme Court subsequent to the date of adoption of these
Rules.
(b) As illustrated in the Model Accounts, Accounts shall conform
to the following rules:
-5-
J-S36013-20
(1) The dates of all receipts, disbursements and
distributions, the sources of the receipts, and the persons to
whom disbursements and distributions are made and the
purpose thereof shall be stated. When a number of
payments have been received from the same source or
disbursed or distributed to the same recipient for the same
purpose over a period of time, such receipts, disbursements
or distributions need not be itemized, but may be stated in
total amounts only, with beginning and ending dates within
the period covered.
(2) Except where otherwise provided by an order of the
court in a particular matter, principal and income shall be
accounted for separately within the Account.
(3) Assets held by the accountant on the closing date of the
Account shall be separately itemized.
(4) Every Account shall contain:
(i) a cover page;
(ii) a summary page with page references;
(iii) separate schedules, as needed, which set forth
receipts, gains or losses on sales or other dispositions,
disbursements, distributions, investments made,
changes in holdings, and other schedules as appropriate;
and
(iv) signature pages signed by all the accountants stating
the Account and verified by at least one of the
accountants. The verification of a personal
representative's Account shall contain a statement that
the Grant of Letters and the first complete advertisement
thereof occurred more than four months before the filing
of the Account, unless the personal representative has
been directed by the court to file an Account prior to that
time.
Pa.O.C. Rule 2.1(a)-(b).
Herein, Appellees filed a first and final account and petition for
adjudication/statement of proposed distribution on September 4, 2019, which
-6-
J-S36013-20
accounted for the Estate’s administration through August 30, 2019. Thus, an
Account was, in fact, filed in this matter and Appellant’s claim to the contrary
is unfounded. Further, the Account included a line item for the Decedent’s
personal property. First and Final Account, 9/4/19, at 11. It explicitly stated
that “[a]ll [Decedent’s] belongings were very old, consisting of no valuables,
collectives, etc. No value.” Id. Thus, while Appellant “is correct that [the
Decedent’s] personal property is not [individually] itemized in the Estate with
any corresponding value,” the property is still included within the Account.
Orphans Court Opinion, 3/11/20, at *5-6 (un-paginated).2
Lastly, Appellant is also correct in his statement that the orphans’ court’s
distribution order did not include the Decedent’s personal property. Appellant,
however, fails to recognize that, at the hearing conducted on November 14,
2019, Appellees’ counsel expressly stated:
[Appellees] do [not] want the [D]ecedent’s personal property.
Why, because it is valueless. It has no value.
***
____________________________________________
2 We recognize that Appellant claims that Appellees’ failure to itemize the
Decedent’s personal property deprived him of the opportunity to confirm that
he did, in fact, obtain all of the Decedent’s personal effects. Pursuant to
Pa.O.C. Rule 2.1(b)(3), however, Appellees only needed to account for the
Decedent’s assets. See Pa.O.C. Rule 2.1(b)(3). Black’s Law Dictionary
defines “asset” as “an item that is owned and has value.” Black's Law
Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Appellees contended that the Decedent’s personal
property was valueless. Appellant does not dispute this fact. Instead, he
simply argues that an error occurred because Appellees failed to list every
item owned by the Decedent. Because we do not read Rule 2.1 to require an
estate to list all of the property owned by the decedent, we conclude that
Appellant’s claim lacks merit.
-7-
J-S36013-20
[Appellees] have no interest in it. They do [not] want it.
[Appellant] can have it.
N.T. Hearing, 11/14/19, at 6-7. Therefore, as of November 2019, Appellees
and the court considered the Decedent’s personal property to be Appellant’s
property. Accordingly, because the orphans’ court ordered that “any personal
property of [Appellant] still in the possession of the Estate or [Appellees] be
returned to him within 30 days of the date of this Order,” the court, in effect,
ordered that all of the Decedent’s personal property be returned to Appellant.
Orphans’ Court Order, 1/30/20. Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that
Appellant’s first two appellate issues lack merit.
In his third appellate issue, Appellant argues that the orphans’ court
erred in failing to charge Goodman rent for his “continued residence in the
Decedent’s home.” Appellant’s Brief at 17. We disagree.
The Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 3311. Possession of real and personal estate; exception
(a) Personal representative.—A personal representative
shall have the right to and shall take possession of, maintain
and administer all the real and personal estate of the
decedent, except real estate occupied at the time of death
by an heir or devisee with the consent of the decedent. He
shall collect the rents and income from each asset in his
possession until it is sold or distributed, and, during the
administration of the estate, shall have the right to maintain
any action with respect to it and shall make all reasonable
expenditures necessary to preserve it. The court may direct
the personal representative to take possession of,
administer and maintain real estate so occupied by an heir
or a devisee if this is necessary to protect the rights of
claimants or other parties. Nothing in this section shall
affect the personal representative's power to sell real estate
occupied by an heir or devisee.
-8-
J-S36013-20
20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3311(a). “It is not contemplated[, however,] that rents shall
be collected by the personal representative from real estate occupied by an
heir or devisee unless needed for payment of claims.” 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3311,
Comment. Thus, the “case authority . . . confirms that as long as the estate
is solvent, rental is not awarded to an estate from an heir or devisee occupying
land of the decedent when the decedent died.” In re Padezanin, 937 A.2d
475, 482 (Pa. Super. 2007).
Herein, there is no dispute that the Estate is solvent. Rather, Appellant
argues that Goodman did not reside at the Property at the time of Decedent’s
death and, as such, owes rent for the period of his residence.3 A review of
the transcripts of the November 14, 2019 and January 13, 2020 hearings
reveals conflicting testimony presented on the subject. Indeed, Appellant
testified that he resided with the Decedent at the time of her death, not
Goodman. N.T. Hearing, 11/14/19, at 9-18; N.T. Hearing, 1/13/20, at 8-12.
Appellees, however, both testified that Goodman lived with the Decedent at
____________________________________________
3 With respect to this issue, Appellant’s brief devotes much of its argument to
discussing the orphans’ court’s failure to admit two exhibits into evidence
during the January 13, 2020 hearing. Appellant’s Brief at 17-28. Appellant,
however, did not include this evidentiary issue in his statement of questions
involved. Id. at 4. Thus, this issue is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a); see
also Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241, 254 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(failure to raise issue in statement of questions involved on appeal results in
waiver). We note, however, that even if we were to consider the two exhibits
offered by Appellant, they only constitute facts supporting Goodman’s
residency and the orphans’ court, as the factfinder, had authority to weigh the
exhibits against other evidence in making its ultimate ruling on who lived at
the Decedent’s property at the time of her death. See Orphans’ Court
Opinion, 3/11/20, at *9 (un-paginated).
-9-
J-S36013-20
the Property at her request when she died. N.T. Hearing, 1/13/20, at 4-8.
Clearly, the orphans’ court made a credibility determination and concluded
that Goodman did, in fact, live on the Property. “Because the [o]rphans'
[c]ourt sits as the fact-finder, it determines the credibility of the witnesses
and, on review, we will not reverse its credibility determinations absent an
abuse of that discretion.” In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d at 206. We
discern no abuse of discretion and therefore conclude that the court did not
err in failing to charge Goodman rent for residing at the Property.
In Appellant’s fourth issue, he argues that the orphans’ court erred in
conducting the November 14, 2019 and January 13, 2020 hearings after it
granted him 90 days to conduct discovery on November 8, 2019. In the
argument section devoted to this appellate issue, however, Appellant cites no
legal authority to support his position that the decision of the orphans’ court
amounted to prejudicial error. Instead, Appellant engages in a rambling
discussion and, in conclusion, asserts that the amount of time permitted for
discovery was “useless.” Appellant’s Brief at 29. This Court previously noted:
The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. Estate of
Lakatosh, [] 656 A.2d 1378, 1381 ([Pa. Super.] 1995). This
Court will not consider the merits of an argument which fails to
cite relevant case [law] 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)[.]
- 10 -
J-S36013-20
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d at 209–210 (quotation marks omitted).
Because Appellant failed to engage in a discussion of this issue and include
any citation to pertinent authority, we conclude that this issue is waived.4
Lastly, Appellant argues that the orphans’ court erred in permitting
Appellees to amend their petition for adjudication via a brief. Appellant utterly
fails to point this Court to where, in the record, the Appellees amended their
petition. Nonetheless, a review of the record indicates that, during the
January 13, 2020 hearing, the orphans’ court directed the parties to submit
briefs. N.T. Hearing, 1/13/20, at 15-17. The Appellees timely complied, and
it is within this brief that they included a proposal on the Estate’s final
distribution. Petitioners Post-Hearing Brief, 1/28/20, at 11. Herein, Appellant
claims that, by permitting the Appellees to amend their petition for
____________________________________________
4 Even if Appellant did not waive this issue, we would conclude that he is not
entitled to relief. As explained above, prior to the November 14, 2019 hearing,
Appellant filed a motion to compel discovery and a motion for a continuance.
In Appellant’s motion to compel discovery, he requested the court compel
Appellees to submit to depositions and permit a real estate professional to
enter the Property and determine its fair market value. Appellant’s Motion to
Compel Discovery, 11/8/19, at *1-3 (un-paginated). The orphans’ court
granted Appellant’s motion to compel discovery and, despite its initial denial,
granted his motion for a continuance. Appellant deposed Appellees in
December 2019. While he currently complains that he did not have enough
time to conduct discovery, he raised no complaint during the January 13, 2020
hearing. In fact, the orphans’ court inquired on three separate occasions as
to whether Appellant needed to present any additional evidence and, each
time, Appellant responded in the negative. N.T. Hearing, 1/13/20, at 16-17.
“Had additional time been necessary and requested, the [orphans’ court]
would have granted it.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 3/11/19, at *12
(un-paginated). Because Appellant did not suffer prejudice, we conclude that
he is not entitled to relief.
- 11 -
J-S36013-20
adjudication in their post-hearing brief, the orphans court “denied [him] the
opportunity to review the amendment[] and potentially object to it.”
Appellant’s Brief at 30.
Upon review, we conclude that this issue is waived. Contrary to
Appellant’s claim, he could have objected to the orphans’ court’s action by
filing a motion for reconsideration. Indeed, Orphans’ Court Rule 8.2 states
that a motion for reconsideration of any order that is final pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 342 may be filed. Pa.O.C.R. 8.2. A review of the certified record,
however, reveals that Appellant did not file a motion for reconsideration.
Appellant therefore raises this claim of error for the first time on appeal and,
as such, this claim is waived. See In re Estate of Schmidt, 596 A.2d 1124,
1132 (Pa. Super. 1991) (explaining that, in order to preserve an issue for
appellate review, an appellant must raise the issue first with the orphans’
court); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues not preserved in the trial court may
not be pursued before this Court).
Because Appellant is not entitled to relief on any of his claims, we affirm
the orphans’ court’s order.
Order affirmed.
- 12 -
J-S36013-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/26/2020
- 13 -