In re: Eugenia Grivas, an Alleged Incapacitated Person

Opinion

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: EUGENIA GRIVAS, AN ALLEGED : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INCAPACITATED PERSON : PENNSYLVANIA :

:

APPEAL OF: IRENE GRIVAS :

:

:

:

: No. 249 MDA 2026

Appeal from the Decree Entered February 6, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at No(s): 311 1/2 of 1999

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 Appellant, Irene Grivas, appeals pro se from the February 6, 2026 decree entered by the orphans’ court of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas in this case involving the guardianship of Appellant’s now- deceased mother, Eugenia Grivas (“Eugenia”). After careful review, we affirm the decree confirming the account submitted by Appellee, Ephrata National Bank (“Bank”).

The following is the relevant factual and procedural history of this protracted litigation. In February 2000, the orphans’ court declared Eugenia incapacitated and appointed Bank as guardian of her estate. Following Eugenia’s death on December 4, 2014, Bank filed a final account in April 2015, addressing the period between July 23, 2008 and April 15, 2015. Appellant, as sole beneficiary and executrix of Eugenia’s estate (“Estate”), filed objections to the 2015 account.

On July 20, 2022, the orphans’ court filed an extensive 92-page adjudication confirming Bank’s 2015 account (“2022 Adjudication”). Appellant appealed pro se the 2022 Adjudication. In re E.G., 2023 WL 6292344 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 27, 2023) (non-precedential decision). We affirmed the 2022 Adjudication, rejecting Appellant’s attempt to relitigate claims1 and concluding that she “fail[ed] to provide any evidence to support her vague, bald assertions” challenging the 2022 Adjudication. Id. at *7. The Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. In re E.G., 318 A.3d 382 (Pa. 2024), reconsideration denied (June 25, 2024).

After the Supreme Court denied Appellant relief, Bank issued the following disbursements in accordance with the 2022 Adjudication: (1) $53,730.25 in legal fees; (2) $1,675.78 in custody or management fees; (3) $28,429.73 to the Estate on May 15, 2024; and (4) $159.91 paid to the Estate on July 15, 2024. Appellant, however, did not negotiate the checks payable to the Estate; rather, in August 2025, Appellant filed a “petition to compel accounting, turnover of estate funds, and for sanctions” at Docket No. 2015- 00323, which was the docket for the Estate. The court transferred the filings to the incapacity docket, Docket No. 1999-00311½, as the issues involved Bank’s guardianship of Eugenia. The court ordered Bank to file another account addressing its activities beginning April 16, 2015.

____________________________________________

1Appellant filed multiple objections and appeals over the course of Bank’s guardianship of Eugenia’s estate, including In re E.G., 1564 MDA 2012 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 13, 2013) (unpublished decision).

3

Bank filed its account on November 5, 2025, after which Appellant filed several motions pro se, including objections to the 2025 account. The court scheduled a hearing on Appellant’s objections for February 5, 2026, at which Appellant did not appear.

The next day, the court issued its adjudication (“2026 Adjudication”), opining that Appellant was “attempting to relitigate many, if not all, of the grievances previously raised and addressed in the [2022] Adjudication[.]” 2026 Adjudication, 2/6/26, at 3. The court determined that the principal in the account was $28,589.64, the total of the two checks payable to the Estate. The court approved an invoice submitted by Bank for $4,331,25 in attorney fees and $400 in court costs. Subtracting the fees and costs from the principal, the court concluded that $23,858.39 remained for distribution to the Estate. Accordingly, the court ordered Bank to stop payment on the prior checks payable to the Estate and pay the Estate $23,858.39, within 30 days. The court additionally ordered that if Appellant “fails to negotiate the check issued in conformity with this Adjudication within ninety [] days after the date of this Adjudication, [Bank] shall use the funds remaining in the account to stop payment on the check issued to [the Estate] and shall pay the remaining funds to the Pennsylvania Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Unclaimed Property.” Id. at 6.

Appellant filed pro se a timely notice of appeal. The court and Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925, with Appellant asserting 24 questions.

Appellant raises the following questions on appeal:

4

1. Whether the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt committed an error of law in confirming [Bank’s] fiduciary account where the court treated Appellant’s objections as barred relitigation despite the court’s acknowledgment that [Bank] continued to possess and control guardianship funds after the [2022 Adjudication] and after the ward’s death?

2. Whether the February 5, 2026 proceeding violated Appellant’s due process rights where the hearing proceeded in Appellant’s absence while material defects in the record remained unresolved, including inaccurate timestamps, missing filings, docket irregularities, cross-docket confusion, unresolved Rule Returnable concerns, and Appellant lacked any record of timely notice before the hearing?

3. Whether the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt abused its discretion and committed legal error by confirming the fiduciary account without making findings addressing Appellant’s preserved objections concerning omitted financial information, unreported assets, unexplained transactions, annual-report deficiencies, and continued post-adjudication fiduciary control of funds?

4. Whether a breakdown in court operations, including inaccurate timestamps, missing filings, incomplete docketing, denial of record correction, cross-docket transfers between the estate and guardianship matters, and unresolved record inaccuracies impaired meaningful participation and appellate review requiring vacatur or remand under Pa.R.A.P. 1926 and 105?

Appellant’s Br. at 2-3 (unpaginated, suggested answers omitted).

When reviewing decrees entered by an orphans’ court, we “determine whether the record is free from legal error and the court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence.” In re Estate of Schwartz, 275 A.3d 1032, 1033 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted). As the orphans’ court sits as factfinder, we apply a deferential standard of review to its findings and “will not reverse its credibility determinations” absent abuse of discretion. Id. (citation omitted). “[W]e are not constrained to give the same deference” to the court’s legal conclusions. Id. (citation omitted). Thus, “we can modify an [o]rphans’

5

[c]ourt decree only if the findings upon which the decree rests are unsupported by competent or adequate evidence or if there has been an error of law, an abuse of discretion or a capricious disbelief of competent evidence.” In re Estate of Devoe, 74 A.3d 264, 267 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

It is well-established that “[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.” Norman for Estate of Shearlds v. Temple Univ. Health Sys., 208 A.3d 1115, 1118 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent [her]self in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that [her] lack of expertise and legal training will be [her] undoing.” Id. at 118-19 (citation omitted). As we reiterated in Appellant’s prior appeal to this Court,

Where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived. It is not the obligation of an appellate court to formulate [A]ppellant’s arguments for her.

In re E.G., 2023 WL 6292344, *6 (quoting Wirth v. Commonwealth, 95 A.3d 822, 837 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted)).

As succinctly stated by the orphans’ court, “Appellant has spent the past 26 years attempting to prove her allegations of wrong[]doing by the guardian, despite multiple hearings, numerous different judges being assigned to her case, and several appeals.” Orphans’ Ct. Op., 4/10/26, at 4 n.2. The court further opined that in addition to raising issues that have been previously

6

litigated, Appellant’s issues “raised on appeal are vague and lack sufficient specificity to allow this court to adequately address them on appeal.” Id. at 5. We agree.

Appellant’s brief and reply brief lack developed arguments addressing specific errors of Bank or the court. For ease of discussion, we group her claims as challenging (1) Bank’s 2025 account, and (2) procedural irregularities. Appellant’s Br. at 6-8 and 11-13; 8-11 and 13-19 (unpaginated).

First, Appellant maintains that she is not relitigating her prior objections, asserting that Bank’s “continuing possession and control of fiduciary assets necessarily create continuing accounting and reporting obligations distinct from prior adjudication.” Appellant’s Br. at 6. She does not, however, identify any specific failing of the Bank occurring after the 2022 Adjudication.2 Moreover, while she faults Bank for “continued retention and control of fiduciary funds[,]” she does not acknowledge that Bank’s retention of funds is due to her refusal to deposit the Estate’s checks. Id. at 7 Thus, we conclude that Appellant waived her issues related to Bank’s 2025 account due to the

____________________________________________

2 Rather than asserting specific misdeeds, Appellant provides the following vague list of “preserved concerns[:]”

• unexplained financial activity; • unresolved reporting obligations; • omitted financial information; • continued fiduciary possession of funds; • alleged accounting deficiencies; and • the propriety of continued post-death administration.

Appellant’s Br. at 12.

7

absence of a developed argument. See Wirth, 95 A.3d at 837 (permitting waiver where an appellant “fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review”) (citation omitted).

Appellant next asserts that the February 5, 2026 hearing “should not have proceeded while the integrity and completeness of the record remained materially disputed and under active challenge[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 6. She contends that she preserved objections to “inaccurate timestamps, incomplete docketing, missing filings, unresolved Rule Returnable concerns, cross-docket confusion, procedural irregularities, and repeated efforts to correct record inaccuracies.” Id. at 8. As with her first issue, Appellant provides neither details regarding most of her allegations nor relevant argument, supported by pertinent authority, explaining how alleged procedural irregularities prejudiced her.3 Accordingly, we conclude Appellant waived her procedural challenges.

____________________________________________

3 One of the few specific examples Appellant asserts involves the orphans’ court’s timestamp, which she alleges erroneously stamped “9:40 a.m.” on several documents regardless of the time of the submission. Appellant’s Br. at 13-14. While she claims the timestamp “materially complicated efforts to understand what filings had actually been submitted and when[,]” she does not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from a timestamp with an incorrect hour. Id. at 14.

Appellant also claims that she “had no actual record or receipt of timely notice” of the hearing, which we note is distinct from claiming that she did not have notice of the hearing. Id. at 6. Moreover, the docket indicates that the scheduling order “was sent via USPS first class mail on 12/10/2025” to Appellant and Appellee’s counsel. Docket at Entry 249.

8

As we conclude that Appellant waived her issues for failure to develop her arguments, we affirm the decree.4 Decree affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/15/2026

____________________________________________

4 In its brief, Bank requested that we impose sanctions and attorney fees on

Appellant. We decline Bank’s request without prejudice for Bank to seek sanctions in the orphans’ court if Appellant files additional meritless motions.