Paige, S. v. Papaleo, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Paige, S. v. Papaleo, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 28, 2022·No. 393 EDA 2021·Unpublished

Opinion

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

[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

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).

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)

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.

2 Appellant filed her pro se notice of appeal on February 8, 2021. Final judgment on the verdict, however, was not entered until April 25, 2021. Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal relates forward to April 25, 2021, the date final judgment was entered and copies of the judgment were distributed to all the appropriate parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (stating notice of appeal filed after court’s determination but before entry of appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on day thereof).

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