In Re: Est. of T.W., Appeal of: S.-R.W.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 3220 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: McLaughlin

Opinion

J-S38014-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF TERESA WHITE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: SHAWN-RYAN WHITE : : : : : : No. 3220 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered November 21, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Orphans' Court at No(s): 0630-2023

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2026

Shawn-Ryan White (“Shawn-Ryan”) appeals pro se from the order

granting the petition to authorize the sale of real property of the estate of

Theresa White (“Theresa”) filed by Bonnie Jennings as guardian (“Jennings”).

We dismiss the appeal.

Shawn-Ryan is the only adult child of Theresa. Theresa is the sole owner

of a residential property located at 7000 Greenwood Avenue, Upper Darby,

Pennsylvania. In October 2023, the orphans’ court found Theresa

incapacitated and appointed Jennings, who is Theresa’s sister, as the guardian

of her person and estate. Jennings filed a petition in September 2024 to

authorize the sale of Theresa’s property, which Shawn-Ryan opposed. After a

hearing on the petition, the court granted the petition and approved the sale

of the property. See Order, issued 11/20/24. Shawn-Ryan filed the instant

appeal of the court’s November 20, 2024 order. J-S38014-25

Shawn-Ryan raises the following six issues on appeal:

[1.] Whether the orphans’ court impermissibly delayed the conduct of the guardianship review hearing pursuant to [Shawn- Ryan’s] April 5, 2024 petition, having yet to have heard the same.

[2.] Whether the orphans’ court committed legal error by hearing the matter of the sale of the real property of the estate and decreeing the approval thereof prior to first conducting the required review hearing matter?

[3.] Whether the orphans’ court was deprived of jurisdiction to hear the review hearing such that any delay is thereby justified.

[4.] Whether Teresa White should have been appointed counsel at the hearings the o[rp]hans’ court conducted on two separate days October 24, 2024 and November 8, 2024, on the matter of the guardian’s requested approval of the Agreement of Sale previously entered into by the guardian.

[5.] Whether the guardian[] can create the supposed need to liquidate assets of the estate like the real property at issue by her own mismanagement and unnecessary waste, which is used in justification of the necessity of said sale.

[6.] Whether the authorization of the Agreement of Sale from the [c]ourt required by the PEF statute must come prior thereto or may be given afterwards, as in this case.

Shawn-Ryan’s Br. at 4 (unpaginated).

When reviewing an order entered by the orphans’ court, the “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

Krasinski, 188 A.3d 461, 466 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc) (citation omitted).

We do not reach the merits of Shawn-Ryan’s claims because there are

significant deficiencies in his appellate brief. Preliminarily, issues one, two,

and three involve Shawn-Ryan’s separate petition for a guardianship review

-2- J-S38014-25

hearing seeking, among other things, the removal of the guardian. These

issues do not implicate the instant November 20, 2024 order approving the

sale of Theresa’s property. We therefore need not review them.

As to Shawn-Ryan’s remaining issues, “[w]hen deficiencies in a brief

hinder our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the

appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived.” Irwin Union Nat’l Bank

and Trust Co. v. Famous, 4 A.3d 1099, 1103 (Pa.Super. 2010); see also

Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating if a

deficient brief impedes this Court’s ability to address any issue on review, “an

issue that is not properly briefed in this manner is considered waived”).

“[U]ndeveloped claims are waived and unreviewable on appeal.”

Commonwealth v. Clayton, 816 A.2d 217, 221 (Pa. 2002). “It is not this

Court’s responsibility to comb through the record seeking the factual

underpinnings of [a] claim.” Irwin Union Nat'l Bank and Trust Co., 4 A.3d

at 1103. “This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on

behalf of an appellant.” Id. Further, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally

construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special

benefit upon the appellant.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498

(Pa.Super. 2005).

Here, the argument section of Shawn-Ryan’s brief is not divided into

separate sections for each question presented, in contravention of

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a). See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)

(stating the argument section of an appellate brief “shall be divided into as

-3- J-S38014-25

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”). In fact, the argument section is not

divided into any parts. Instead, the argument section largely focuses on

Shawn-Ryan’s claim that the orphans’ court improperly delayed in reviewing

his petition for a guardianship review hearing, which is not at issue in the

instant appeal. Further, parts of the argument section consist of incomplete

sentences and rambling statements. Shawn-Ryan acknowledges this omission

on the last page of his brief wherein he signs, “Respectively submitted, timely

albeit incomplete.” Shawn-Ryan’s Br. at 45 (unpaginated) (emphasis

added).

Most importantly, Shawn-Ryan does not meaningfully discuss the

application of any law to the facts relevant to the issue properly before us:

the propriety of the order approving the sale. Because these substantial

omissions and defects preclude meaningful review, we dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Date: 2/13/2026

-4-