Estate of: George Porupski

J-A08002-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF GEORGE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PORUPSKI : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: JOSEPH M. PORUPSKI : No. 1201 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered September 9, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): 541 OC 1979
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: MARCH 18, 2022
Joseph M. Porupski (Appellant) appeals from the order entered in the
Fayette County Orphans’ Court, distributing the Estate of George Porupski
(Estate).1 As we are unable to glean the court’s reasoning from the record,
we remand for the court to file, within 30 days, a supplemental opinion
addressing all issues raised in Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and
including any pertinent discussion on waiver. This Court’s Prothonotary shall
then issue a new briefing schedule.
The pleadings and notes of testimony to the January 14, 2021, hearing
indicate the following. The decedent in this matter, George Porupski
(Decedent), died testate in 1979. He owned 61 acres of real property in
Nicholson Township, Fayette County, which included a residence. Decedent’s
____________________________________________
1 The appointed administrator of the estate, Simon John, Esquire, informed
this Court by letter that he would not be filing a brief.
J-A08002-22
will devised a life estate in the residence to his daughter, Margaret Gunnoe
(Appellee), subject to her upkeep of the house and payment of taxes and
insurance. Decedent further bequeathed the rest and residue of his Estate in
equal shares to his four children: Appellee; Joseph R. Porupski (Executor),
who was appointed executor of the Estate; and two additional children.
Appellant, who was 57 years old in 2021, is Decedent’s grandson and
Executor’s son. Appellant is also Appellee’s nephew.
In 1992, the house was destroyed by a fire. Subsequently, Appellee
lived in a mobile home, and then a modular home, on the property. Appellant
alleged that in 1994, Appellee agreed to relinquish her one-fourth interest in
the residual estate, in exchange for Executor purchasing the $36,022.50
modular home for her. N.T., 1/14/21, at 35, 39. Appellee, however, denied
that she ever waived her interest. Id. at 18.
The other two siblings transferred their one-fourth interests in the Estate
to Executor in 1983 and 1993. Appellant alleged that until 2006, Executor
solely paid the real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs for the
property. N.T. at 32-33. Executor eventually borrowed money from his son
— Appellant — to pay these expenditures. Id. at 40. In 2006, Executor,
acting in his individual capacity and as Executor, transferred the deed to the
property to Appellant, as satisfaction of the loan. Id. at 40, 57. Appellant
testified that in 2006, Executor informed Appellee of this transfer. Id. at 41.
Appellee, on the other hand, testified that she did not learn about the transfer
-2-
J-A08002-22
until 2018, when she consulted an attorney about transferring her share of
the estate to her sons. Id. at 18.
Appellant also averred that since 2006, he has solely paid the insurance,
real estate taxes, and maintenance costs for the property. N.T. at 30, 33, 44.
Meanwhile, Appellee testified her modular home was assessed separately from
the land, and she has paid the taxes on the home since 1994. Id. at 48-49.
Executor died in 2010, without having filed any accounting of the Estate.
The two other siblings are also deceased.
On February 12, 2019, Appellee filed the underlying counseled motion
to appoint a substitute administrator for the Estate. Appellant filed an answer.
On May 22, 2019, the orphans’ court appointed Simon John, Esquire
(Administrator). On January 14, 2021, the court heard oral argument on
various issues, as well as testimony from Appellant, Appellee, and Appellee’s
daughter in law. The court did not enter any rulings on the record at this
time. See N.T. at 77-78.
On February 5, 2021, the orphans’ court issued an order, which, inter
alia: (1) stated Appellee “did not execute a valid release to her interest in the
[E]state;” (2) rejected Appellant’s claim of laches because Appellee’s interest
in the residual estate “vested as of the date of death;” and (3) directed the
parties to provide Administrator with any information necessary to file an
inventory of the Estate. Order, 2/5/21, at 1-2. This order did not include any
discussion of the court’s conclusions.
-3-
J-A08002-22
On August 10, 2021, Administrator filed a first accounting of the Estate,
listing only one asset, the real property. The accounting did not include any
expenses. Administrator also filed a proposed distribution, recommending
that: (1) Appellant receive a three-fourths interest in the property and
Appellee receive a one-fourth interest; (2) Appellant transfer a one-fourth
interest in the property to Appellee; and (3) Appellee was liable to the
residuary heirs for real estate taxes paid from Decedent’s death to the fire
that destroyed the house.
The orphans’ court issued the underlying order of distribution on
September 9, 2021, adopting all of Administrator’s recommendations. The
court further directed that Appellant and Appellee each pay one half of
Administrator’s fees. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
court denied. Appellant then took this timely appeal.
On appeal, Appellant raises five issues for our review:
[1.] Whether the lower court had subject matter jurisdiction and
did the lower court err in awarding an interest in real estate when
the Executor transferred the real estate for valuable
consideration?
[2.] Whether the lower court erred when it did not rule on the
issue that . . . Appellee was guilty of laches?
[3.] Did the lower court err when it failed to conduct a hearing on
the exceptions filed to the proposed decree?
[4.] Did the lower court err in failing to address unjust enrichment
of Appellee?
-4-
J-A08002-22
[5.] Whether the trial court erred in directing . . . Appellant to
pay fiduciary fees in an estate that Appellant was not an heir,
legatee or devisee?
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
The orphans’ court issued an opinion, which stated in sum:
AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2021, upon review of
the Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, several of which
raise jurisdiction which has been waived by [A]ppellant by failing
to raise said issues in a timely fashion, the Court relies upon the
record and our prior orders and no further opinion shall be issued.
Orphans’ Ct. Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 9/3/21. Appellant’s brief does not
address the court’s suggestion of waiver.
Appellant raises five distinct and diverse issues. The orphans’ court
opinion does not state which issues it believes are waived. Furthermore, we
are unable to glean the court’s reasoning for its various rulings from the
record, including the prior orders and hearing transcript. “This Court is an
error-correcting court[,] not an error-finding court.” Commonwealth v.
Walker, 954 A.2d 1249, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc). Without an
understanding of the orphans’ court’s rationale, findings of fact, and legal
bases for its rulings, we cannot properly review Appellant’s challenges thereto,
and any decision we issue at this juncture would be an improper advisory
opinion to the parties.
Accordingly, we remand for the orphans’ court to file, within 30 days, a
supplemental opinion addressing all issues raised in Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) statement. The court shall also specify which issues, if any, it
-5-
J-A08002-22
believes are waived, with discussion of the relevant legal authority. We direct
this Court’s Prothonotary to issue, upon receipt of the court’s opinion, a new
briefing schedule. Appellant shall address any discussion of waiver in the new
opinion.2 Furthermore, we direct that upon receipt of all necessary filings and
briefs, the Prothonotary shall list this appeal on the next available argument
panel convening in the Western District.
Case remanded for a supplemental orphans’ court opinion and
proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Superior Court jurisdiction
retained. Case continued to a future argument panel in light of the necessity
for a new briefing schedule.
____________________________________________
2 If the orphans’ court’s supplemental opinion does not include any discussion
on waiver, Appellant and Appellee may notify this Court that they will instead
rely on the briefs previously submitted.
-6-