In Re: Est. of J.H.Dawson, Appeal of: V. Hymans

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 1557 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A03021-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF JOSEPH H. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DAWSON : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: VIETA HYMANS : : : : : No. 1557 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered May 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Orphans' Court at No(s): 4820-1198

BEFORE: STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MAY 21, 2025

Vieta Hymans (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the order granting a

motion for surcharge. Appellee Steven Goudsouzian, Esquire, as the

Administrator for the Estate of Joseph Dawson, has moved to dismiss the

appeal for Appellant’s failure to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. We grant

Appellee’s application and dismiss the appeal.

The trial court set forth the background facts as follows:

Joseph Dawson passed away on April 22, 2020. His sole beneficiary, and the executrix of his estate, was his daughter[,] Karin Dawson. Karin Dawson later passed away on March 24, 2021. The executor of Karin Dawson’s estate is Attorney Steven Goudsouzian. Karin Dawson’s two beneficiaries are her children, [Appellant] and David Collette. As a result of Karin Dawson’s passing, [Appellant] was appointed on June 10, 2021 as the successor administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Dawson. She was later removed as administratrix, and Attorney Goudsouzian was appointed as administrator on June 20, 2023. J-A03021-25

The principal asset of the Estate of Joseph Dawson was real property located at 518 Parsons Street, Easton, Pennsylvania. The property was listed for sale in October 2023 and sold in November 2023. The principal asset of the Estate of Karin Dawson is the proceeds of her father’s estate, which was not finalized before her passing. It is therefore necessary for Joseph Dawson’s estate to be settled prior to the settlement of Karin Dawson’s estate and the distribution of those assets to [Appellant] and Mr. Collette as her beneficiaries.

Order of Court and Statement of Reasons, filed 5/9/24, at 1-2.

In January 2024, Appellee filed a motion for surcharge against Appellant

alleging that from the time of Joseph Dawson’s passing, Appellant had been

residing in Joseph Dawson’s home without paying rent and other expenses.

See Motion for Surcharge, 1/10/24, at ¶¶ 11, 13, 15-17. Appellee therefore

sought a surcharge against Appellant for unpaid rent, property taxes, and

expenses that were deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the property.

Following a non-jury trial, the court granted Appellee’s motion for

surcharge, and Appellant timely appealed. The court issued an order directing

Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained

of on appeal (“Rule 1925(b) statement”) within 21 days of the date of the

order. See Order, 6/5/24. The order advised Appellant that “failure to comply

with such direction shall be considered by the appellate court as a waiver of

all objections to the order, ruling, or other matter complained of, pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4).” Id.

Appellant never filed a 1925(b) statement. The court noted the failing

in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and stated that as a result, it was “unable to

-2- J-A03021-25

meaningfully address any of the errors Appellant may have perceived in our

May 9, 2024 [o]rder.” See Statement Pursuant to Rule 1925(a), filed 7/1/24,

at 2.

Appellee filed an application in this Court to dismiss the appeal on the

grounds that, inter alia, Appellant failed to preserve her issues on appeal

because she did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement. 1 This Court deferred the

decision of the application to dismiss to the instant panel. See Order, 11/1/24.

Appellant raises the following issues in her brief:

1. Did the Trial Court err in imposing a surcharge of $43,817.21 against Appellant despite the lack of an agreement to pay rent and evidence of Appellant’s efforts to preserve the estate?

2. Did the Trial Court improperly conclude that Appellant breached her fiduciary duties, despite a lack of substantial evidence supporting such a finding?

3. Did the Trial Court err in its speculative calculation of rent and taxes, without considering Appellant’s financial circumstances or the uninhabitable condition of the property?

4. Did the Trial Court fail to apply relevant legal provisions and case law concerning the fiduciary duties of an administrator?

Appellant’s Br. at 3.

We do not reach the merits of Appellant’s claims because Appellant’s

failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement is fatal to her appeal. When a trial

court orders an appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, issues not included ____________________________________________

1 Appellee raises the same issue regarding Appellant’s failure to comply with

Rule 1925(b) in its brief. See Appellee’s Br. at 8-10.

-3- J-A03021-25

in the statement are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Commonwealth

v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial

component of the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify

and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa.Super. 2020). The

waiver rule for failure to conform with Rule 1925(b) applies equally to pro se

appellants. See Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774-75 (Pa.

2005) (holding pro se appellant who failed to comply with Rule 1925(b) waived

all issues); Commonwealth v. Boniella, 158 A.3d 162, 163-64 (Pa.Super.

2017) (holding pro se appellant’s failure to file timely Rule 1925(b) statement

waived all issues).

Here, Appellant did not file a 1925(b) statement. Although the trial

court’s docket states that Appellant filed a “concise statement of matters

complained upon appeal” on June 25, 2024, that is not correct. The court

noted, and our review of the record confirms, that Appellant filed four

documents on that date, none of which were a Rule 1925(b) statement. 2 Since ____________________________________________

2 The court described the four documents as follows:

(1) a six-page July 29, 2023 letter to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania regarding Attorney Steven N. Goudsouzian; (2) eight pages of undated notes titled “Presentation of Case to the Honorable Judge,” appearing to be a recitation of facts and argument in the nature of a trial presentation; (3) a two-page undated letter “To Whom It May Concern” appearing to be a narrative of actions [Appellant] claims to have taken with respect to the (Footnote Continued Next Page)

-4- J-A03021-25

Appellant failed to comply with Rule 1925(b), all issues are waived, and we

are precluded from reaching the merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Application to dismiss granted. Appeal dismissed.

Date: 5/21/2025

____________________________________________

real property at issue in this case; and (4) a four-page unaddressed letter dated June 25, 2024, appearing to be a narrative of actions [Appellant] claims she took as the executrix of this estate and arguments regarding how she was allegedly wronged by Attorney Goudsouzian.

Statement Pursuant to Rule 1925(a) at 1-2.

-5-