Paige, S. v. Papaleo, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Paige, S. v. Papaleo, F.

DecidedJanuary 28, 2022

Docket393 EDA 2021

StatusUnpublished

This text of Paige, S. v. Papaleo, F. (Paige, S. v. Papaleo, F.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paige, S. v. Papaleo, F., (Pa. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S31019-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

SHARON M. PAIGE, EXECUTOR OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ESTATE OF MARVIN SAMUELS, : PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED : : Appellant : : v. : : FRANCISCO PAPALEO : : Appellee : No. 393 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 25, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No. 190403263

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED JANUARY 28, 2022

Appellant, Sharon M. Paige, executor of the estate of Marvin Samuels,

deceased (“Decedent”), appeals pro se from the judgment entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Appellee, Francisco

Papaleo. The underlying action concerns Appellee’s purported refusal to

return Decedent’s personal property to Appellant. We vacate and remand for

further proceedings.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.

[Decedent] and [Appellee] were domestic partners in a sometimes contentious relationship. [Decedent] and [Appellee] resided together in a house they shared as joint tenants located at 2227 South 13th Street from 2003 until July or August 2012, when the relationship ended and ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S31019-21

[Appellee] moved out of the house. [Decedent] died on May 7, 2014, and [Appellant] became the duly appointed Executor of the Estate in January 2016.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed April 23, 2021, at 2) (internal citations omitted).

On April 22, 2019, Appellant filed a complaint against Appellee in the

Civil Trial Division of the Court of Common Pleas. The complaint did not state

a specific cause of action. Rather, Appellant asserted that Appellee removed

Decedent’s personal property from their residence, and Appellee “sold-off

valuable furniture, electronics, books and collectibles, thereby converting the

estate’s property to his personal use and profit without accounting to

[Appellant].” (Complaint, filed 4/22/19, at ¶8).

Appellee filed preliminary objections on July 10, 2019. Appellee first

asserted that the Civil Trial Division lacked subject matter jurisdiction,

pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711. Appellee insisted that “the Orphans’ Court

maintains the exclusive and mandatory jurisdiction over any and all matters

involving administration [of] an estate, administrators of the estate, and their

respective fiduciary roles.” (Preliminary Objections, filed 7/10/19, at ¶4).

Further, Appellee contended that Appellant’s complaint lacked specificity, and

the complaint failed to demonstrate any legally cognizable claims.

Consequently, Appellee requested that Appellant’s complaint “be dismissed

with prejudice and/or the matter be transferred to the … Orphans’ Court

Division.” (Id. at ¶22).

On August 5, 2019, Appellant filed a memorandum of law in opposition

-2- J-S31019-21

to Appellee’s preliminary objections. Although Appellant concluded that the

preliminary objections should be overruled, Appellant also admitted that the

case should be transferred to Orphans’ Court. (See Memorandum of Law,

filed 8/5/19, at ¶2). The court ultimately disposed of Appellee’s preliminary

objections as follows: “[I]n consideration of [Appellee’s] Preliminary Objection

to [Appellant’s] Complaint, and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED

and DECREED that this Preliminary Objection is SUSTAINED in part.” (Order,

filed 12/11/19, at 1).1 While the order directed Appellant to file an amended

complaint, it did not provide any further discussion of the specific arguments

in Appellee’s preliminary objections. The order also made no mention of

transferring the matter to Orphans’ Court.

Appellant filed an amended complaint on January 14, 2020. While the

caption of the amended complaint still referenced the Civil Trial Division,

Appellant raised an identical claim regarding Appellee’s retention of

Decedent’s personal property. (See Amended Complaint, filed 1/14/20, at

¶8). Appellee filed an answer and new matter on January 15, 2020.

Appellee’s filing did not mention the need to transfer the matter to Orphans’

Court.

Thereafter, Appellant’s case proceeded in the Civil Trial Division. On

____________________________________________

1We note that the jurist who disposed of Appellee’s preliminary objections was not the same jurist who presided over the subsequent trial. (See Trial Court Opinion at 3).

-3- J-S31019-21

February 4, 2020, the parties appeared for a compulsory arbitration hearing.

The arbitrators found in favor of Appellee, and Appellant filed a notice of

appeal from the decision. The court conducted a de novo bench trial on

September 29, 2020. On September 30, 2020, the court entered its verdict

in favor of Appellee. The court found Appellant’s “claims are barred by laches

because [Appellant] did not exercise due diligence in bringing this claim and

[Appellee] has accordingly been prejudiced….” (Trial Work Sheet, filed

9/30/20, at 1). Even if laches did not apply, the court concluded that

Appellant was not entitled to relief where she “failed to definitively identify the

specific personal property at issue, whether the decedent was clearly the sole

owner of the property … and/or the fair value of the property.” (Id.)

Appellant timely filed post-trial motions on Monday, October 12, 2020.

At that point, the court discovered that Appellant’s attorney was suspended

from the practice of law in Pennsylvania when he filed the post-trial motions.

(See Trial Court Opinion at 1-2; N.T. Hearing, 1/7/21, at 4-5). On October

15, 2020, the court struck Appellant’s post-trial motions. The court also

permitted Appellant to file new post-trial motions, either counseled or pro se.

Appellant subsequently filed pro se post-trial motions, and the court

conducted a hearing on January 7, 2021. On January 8, 2021, the court

denied Appellant’s post-trial motions.

Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on Monday, February 8, 2021.

On February 19, 2021, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

-4- J-S31019-21

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Following the grant of

an extension, Appellant filed a pro se Rule 1925(b) statement on March 19,

2021. On April 25, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se praecipe to enter judgment

in favor of Appellee.2

Appellant now raises four issues for our review:

Did not the trial court err by overlooking the Orphans’ Court as the court of [Appellant’s] first and original jurisdiction (seeking relief from [Appellee’s] harassment, abuse and violation of rights)[?]

Did not the trial court err in assuming jurisdiction where the Orphans’ Court had exclusive mandatory jurisdiction over matters involving power of attorney[?]

Did not the trial court err in assuming jurisdiction where the Orphans’ Court had mandatory jurisdiction over fiduciaries, personal property, and distribution of estates[?]

Did not the court below err when failing to transfer [Appellant’s] [case] to the Orphans’ Court sua sponte[?]

(Appellant’s Brief at 2).

Appellant’s issues are related, and we address them together. Appellant

contends that Appellee “obstructed and impeded [Appellant’s] efforts to

access any estate property in order to perform her duties” as executor. (Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI