Est. of V.E.R., Appeal of: T.J.R.

J-A03009-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ESTATE OF V.E.R, DECEASED : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: T.J.R. :
:
:
:
:
:
: No. 1515 EDA 2022
:
Appeal from the Order Entered May 24, 2022
in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Orphans’ Court
at No(s): 2007-E0088
BEFORE: KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 21, 2023
Appellant, Thomas J. Romano, appeals pro se from the orphans’ court’s
May 24, 2022 order denying the petition to remove John J. Gonzales, Esq. as
administrator of Decedent’s estate. After careful review, we affirm.1
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from
the certified record, are as follows: On April 17, 2004, Dr. Vincent E. Romano
(hereinafter, “Decedent”) executed a deed which transferred his interest to
his home at 256 Radcliffe Street, Bristol, Pennsylvania (the “property”) to his
daughter, Mary Jo D’Agostino and her husband, Peter D’Agostino, while
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1Appellees, Bernadette Snearowski and Mary Jo D’Agostino, filed a letter on
October 3, 2022 indicating that they will not be filing an appellate brief in this
matter.
J-A03009-23
reserving a life estate for himself. In 2007, Appellant, Decedent’s son,
initiated guardianship proceedings regarding Decedent. After various
petitions and several hearings, the orphan’s court entered a decree on June
12, 2007, which declared Decedent to be an incapacitated person and
appointed Deborah L. Klock as plenary guardian of his person and estate.
On May 5, 2010, Decedent died testate, domiciled in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania. He was survived by nine of his children. On or about the date
of Decedent’s death, Appellant filed an informal caveat with the Bucks County
Register of Wills, contending that Decedent executed a codicil to his February
9, 2001 will on January 30, 2007. The codicil nominated Appellant to serve
as executor. Michael Romano, another son of Decedent, also filed a “Petition
for Grant of Letters Testamentary” with the Register of Wills on May 5, 2010.
The will that Michael Romano offered for probate was dated June 15, 1998
and nominated Michael Romano to serve as executor. On May 19, 2010,
Appellant filed a “Petition for Grant of Letters Testamentary” with the Register
of Wills, which offered for probate Decedent’s February 9, 2001 will and the
January 30, 2007 codicil.
The Register of Wills scheduled a hearing for August 31, 2010 to resolve
the controversy. By agreement of the parties, the Register of Wills admitted
to probate Decedent’s February 9, 2001 will and appointed John Gonzales,
Esq., as a neutral administrator of Decedent’s estate. Over the intervening
years since this resolution, Decedent’s Estate and the guardianship have been
-2-
J-A03009-23
the subject of extensive litigation, which has included objections to the estate
accounting filed by the Administrator Gonzales and objections to the
guardianship accounting of Deborah Klock.
No party moved for a hearing on the objections, and as a result, the
orphans’ court sua sponte scheduled a final hearing on the objections on
March 17, 2020. This hearing was ultimately continued as a result of the
Covid-19 pandemic, and on February 22, 2021, the orphans’ court issued case
management order that denied all pending pre-trial motions and set an April
2, 2021 deadline for the filing of additional pre-trial motions. The February
22, 2021 order also set a May 1, 2021 deadline to exchange expert reports;
identified and limited the issues for trial; and permitted all pre-trial rulings
and questions about the scope of hearing to be preserved for appellate review.
On March 18, 2022, Administrator Gonzales filed a “Petition to Remove
Administrator cta by Consent.” On May 18, 2022, a hearing was held
regarding this matter. Thereafter, on May 24, 2022, the orphans’ court issued
an order denying Administrator Gonzales’ petition.
In its May 24, 2022 order, the orphans’ court explained that its decision
was based on the fact that Administrator Gonzales did not allege a medical
emergency or condition that warranted immediate action. The orphans’ court
further explained that it intended to schedule a hearing on the merits of the
outstanding objections no later than October 2022. See orphans’ court order,
5/24/22 at n.1.
-3-
J-A03009-23
On June 14, 2022, Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal from the May
24, 2022 order. On June 16, 2022, the orphans’ court ordered Appellant to
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed a lengthy Rule 1925(b) statement on July
5, 2022.
On September 14, 2022, the orphans’ court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Therein, the orphan’s court found that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement
failed to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure in
numerous respects. See orphans’ court opinion, 9/14/22 at 5-6. The
orphans’ court concluded that Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement “is so
disorganized and difficult to decipher” that it is the functional equivalent of no
concise statement at all. Id. at 6. The orphans’ court further noted that
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement “is far from concise,” but rather is a
conglomeration of various allegations intertwined with lengthy passages of
case law, statutes, Orphan’s Court Rules, and notes of testimony. Id. at 3,
6. Alternatively, the orphans’ court found that even if Appellant’s issues on
appeal are not waived due to his insufficient Rule 1925(b) statement, his
appeal should still be dismissed because the removal of an estate fiduciary
was within its discretion. Id. at 6-9.
On September 27, 2022, Appellees filed an “Application to Quash”
Appellant’s appeal that was ultimately denied by this Court on October 31,
2022.
-4-
J-A03009-23
Prior to any consideration of the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must
first determine whether his brief complies with the Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure.
It is well settled that parties to an appeal are required to submit briefs
in conformity, in all material respects, with the requirements of the Rules of
Appellate Procedure, as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will
admit. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the
appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211
(Pa.Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011).
We will not advocate or act as counsel for an appellant who has not
substantially complied with our rules. Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 932 A.2d
78, 93 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). Moreover, Appellant’s status as a
pro se litigant does not absolve him from responsibility for compliance with
the rules. See Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa.Super.
2005) (stating, “any person choosing to represent himself in a legal
proceeding must . . . assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will
be his undoing.”).
Here, our review reveals that Appellant’s brief falls well below the
standards delineated in our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Preliminarily, we
observe that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of jurisdiction; a
separate section specifying the order or determination sought to be reviewed;
-5-
J-A03009-23
a statement of the scope and standard of review; nor a short conclusion
stating the precise relief sought. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (3), and (9).
Additionally, the “Argument” portion of Appellant’s brief is not “divided
into as many parts as there are questions to be argued[,]” as this section
contains no distinctive subheadings at all. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) and
2119(a). On the contrary, Appellant’s “Argument” is confusing and presents
vague, largely conclusory allegations of error intertwined with lengthy
passages of case law and notes of testimony. See Appellant’s brief at 20-41.2
Appellant fails to conduct a meaningful discussion and analysis of this legal
authority and how it is applicable to his case, in direct violation of Rule
2119(a). See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating that the argument shall include
“such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”).
Although Appellant’s brief does include a statement of the case, entitled
“Facts”, it is largely devoid of the necessary citations or references to the
record in violation of Rules 2119(b) and (c) and is interwoven with multiple
allegations that are not relevant to the factual or procedural history of this
case. See Appellant’s brief at 8-18.
Most significantly, as discussed, Appellant has failed to include a
“Statement of Questions Involved” in his brief in direct violation of Rule
2116(a), which provides that the statement of the questions involved must
____________________________________________
2We note that Appellant’s brief does not contain pagination. For the ease of
our discussion, we have assigned each page a corresponding number.
-6-
J-A03009-23
state the issues “with sufficient specificity to enable the reviewing court to
readily identify the issues to be resolved….” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) note (emphasis
added). Appellant’s failure to include a statement of the questions involved is
particularly troubling as this requirement defines the specific issues this court
is being asked to review. See e.g., Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159,
1160 (Pa.Super. 1996).
Given the substantial defects in Appellant’s brief, we could quash his
appeal for failure to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure. In re
Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211. However, in light of the fact that this case
proceeded to oral argument, we will briefly address the merits of Appellant’s
cognizable issue on appeal.
As best we can discern from his woefully defective brief, the crux of
Appellant’s claim is that the orphans’ court did not remove Gonzales as
administrator of Decedent’s estate despite Appellant’s claim Gonzales “wasted
and mismanaged” the estate and “lacks the physical and cognitive abilities to
serve as Administrator.” See Appellant’s brief at 4, 19. This claim is belied
by the record.
This Court has recognized that,
the findings of a judge of the orphans’ court division,
sitting without a jury, must be accorded the same
weight and effect as the verdict of a jury, and will not
be reversed by an appellate court in the absence of an
abuse of discretion or a lack of evidentiary support.
This rule is particularly applicable to findings of fact
which are predicated upon the credibility of the
witnesses, whom the judge has had the opportunity
-7-
J-A03009-23
to hear and observe, and upon the weight given to
their testimony. In reviewing the Orphans’ Court’s
findings, our task is to ensure that the record is free
from legal error and to determine if the Orphans’
Court’s findings are supported by competent and
adequate evidence and are not predicated upon
capricious disbelief of competent and credible
evidence.
In re Estate of Bechtel, 92 A.3d 833, 837 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
Instantly, the orphans’ court found that there was no evidence
presented in this matter that an immediate medical or cognitive emergency
existed that warranted Administrator Gonzales’ removal. Specifically, the
orphans’ court reasoned as follows:
[R]emoval was unnecessary because [Administrator
Gonzales] did not allege, nor was any evidence
presented that a medical or cognitive emergency or
condition existed that warranted removal. While
[Administrator Gonzales] has Parkinson’s disease and
suffers some hand tremors, by his own admission his
cognitive functioning has not diminished. [Notes of
testimony, 5/18/22 at 12-13.] Consequently, we
found that he currently possesses the physical and
cognitive ability to serve as administrator of the
estate. Furthermore, in our May 24, 2022 Order
denying the petition for removal, we stated that it was
our intention to schedule a hearing on the merits of
the outstanding objections to the accounts and
motions for surcharge no later than October of 2022.
Pending the decision of this Honorable Court, we
continue to be hopeful that a hearing to resolve
outstanding issues relative to the estate could be held
in the near future, at which time, [Administrator
Gonzales] would be relieved of his duties as
administrator. Because we perceive that
[Administrator Gonzales] presently is capable of
-8-
J-A03009-23
serving as administrator of the estate, we respectfully
submit that Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed.
Orphans’ court opinion, 9/14/22, at 7 (notes of testimony citation
reformatted).
Following our thorough review, we discern no abuse of discretion on the
part of the orphans’ court in reaching this decision. The orphans’ court found
the testimony of Administrator Gonzales credible, and we are precluded from
reweighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for that of the
factfinder. See In re Estate of Bechtel, 92 A.3d at 837.
Accordingly, we affirm the orphans’ court’s May 24, 2022 order denying
the petition to remove Administrator Gonzales as administrator of Decedent’s
estate.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/21/2023
-9-