In Re: The Estate of Mumma, R.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 22, 2023
• Docket: 74 MDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A09016-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUMMA : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II : : : : : No. 74 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 6, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 21-86-0398

IN RE: THE ESTATE OF ROBERT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUMMA : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II : : : : : No. 75 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 6, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 21-86-0398

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED: MARCH 22, 2023

Appellant, Robert M. Mumma, II, appeals two orders entered in the

Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County

on December 6, 2021. We are constrained to quash this appeal as untimely.

Because our disposition turns on a limited set of facts, we recite only a

distilled history of this long-running dispute. Robert M. Mumma (Mumma, Sr.)

died testate on April 12, 1986. Two testamentary trusts, a marital trust and J-A09016-23

a residual trust, were created under the terms of his will. Letters testamentary

on Mumma, Sr.’s estate were granted to Barbara McK. Mumma (the widow of

Mumma, Sr. and hereinafter “B.M. Mumma”) and Lisa M. Morgan (one of

Mumma, Sr.’s daughters and hereinafter “Ms. Morgan”), to serve as

co-executrixes and co-trustees.

B.M. Mumma died in July 2010 and Ms. Morgan became the sole trustee

of the marital and residual trusts. On June 7, 2019, Ms. Morgan filed a petition

seeking the Orphans’ Court’s approval to combine the marital and residual

trusts. Over Appellant’s objections, the Orphans’ Court approved Ms.

Morgan’s proposal to combine the trusts.

On July 27, 2021, Ms. Morgan filed the two petitions giving rise to the

present appeals. Without going into unnecessary detail, both petitions

requested court approval to withhold distributions from the combined trust.

On August 2, 2021, the Orphans’ Court issued rules to show cause for both

petitions filed by Ms. Morgan and Appellant responded in opposition to both

petitions. Later, the Orphans’ Court scheduled hearings on Ms. Morgan’s

petitions for December 2, 2021.

Appellant failed to appear at the December 2nd hearings. Nevertheless,

the proceedings went forward, and the Orphans’ Court granted both petitions.

The orders granting Ms. Morgan’s petitions were recorded in the docket on

December 6, 2021 and notice of the orders was provided that same day

-2- J-A09016-23

pursuant to Orphans’ Court Rule 4.6. Appellant filed two notices of appeal

challenging the Orphans’ Court’s orders on January 6, 2022.1

The timeliness of an appeal concerns our appellate jurisdiction, and we

may raise the issue sua sponte. See Commonwealth v. Andre, 17 A.3d

951, 957–958 (Pa. Super. 2011). To lodge a timely appeal from a final order,

“the notice . . . shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from

which the appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). “[Under our appellate rules,

the date of entry of an order] shall be the day the clerk of the court [] mails

or delivers copies of the order to the parties[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1).

Here, the Orphans’ Court entered the orders challenged on appeal on

December 6, 2021, when notice of the December 2, 2021 orders was issued

to the parties pursuant to Orphans’ Court Rule 4.6. As such, the 30-day

appeal period began to run on December 6, 2021, and Appellant needed to

file his notices of appeal no later than January 5, 2022. Appellant concedes

that he filed his notices of appeal on January 6, 2022, one day after the appeal

period lapsed.2 See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2. Because Appellant failed to

file timely notices of appeal, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of

Appellant’s claims. Accordingly, we quash.

____________________________________________

1 Both Appellant and the Orphans’ Court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

2 Appellant asks this Court to excuse his untimely filings, claiming that he relied upon erroneous advice from an individual in the clerk’s office. See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2-3. We decline this invitation.

-3- J-A09016-23

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/22/2023

-4-