In Re: Estate of Ann Nancy Luciani ( 2019 )

J. A24040/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ANN NANCY LUCIANI : PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: JOHN J. LUCIANI, JR. : No. 451 MDA 2018
AND CHRISTOPHER LUCIANI :
Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2018,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Orphans’ Court Division at No. 35-2012-01377
BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED: MAY 1, 2019
John J. Luciani, Jr. and Christopher Luciani appeal the February 8, 2018
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Orphans’ Court
Division that sustained the preliminary objections of appellee, Nancy Nealon
(“Nealon”), trustee of the Ann Nancy Luciani Trust, and dismissed the
declaratory judgment action filed by appellants. After careful review, we
affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history, as recounted by the trial
court, are as follows:
On May 23, 2017, Petitioners Christopher Luciani
(“Christopher”) and John J. Luciani, Jr. (“John, Jr.”)
filed a Petition for Citation to Show Cause Why
Declaratory Relief Should Not Be Entered. Said
Petition seeks the issuance of a Citation to [Nealon].
Count One of the Petition seeks declaratory judgment
pertaining to the distribution of shares of closely held
family business Concrete Step Units, Inc.
(“Concrete Step”) from the Trust of John J.
J. A24040/18
Luciani, Sr. (“John, Sr.”), while Count Two seeks
declaratory judgment pertaining to shares of stock of
another closely held family business, Wayne Crushed
Stone, Inc. (“Wayne Crushed”). The Court
understands [appellants’] position to be that our
Superior Court, in its Memorandum Opinion in the
matter of In re: Estate of John J. Luciani, Sr.,
Deceased, No. 293 MDA 2016, 2016 Pa. Super.
Unpub. LEXIS 4242, at *10 (Nov. 21, 2016),
purportedly gave [appellants] a cause of action
against [Nealon] and required [Nealon] to take certain
actions with respect to the distribution of stock in
Concrete Step and Wayne Crushed. More specifically,
[appellants] insist that the Superior Court’s ruling
means that certain shares of Concrete Step formerly
held by the John J. Luciani, Sr. Revocable Trust
(“John, Sr. Trust”) must be distributed by [Nealon] to
the Luciani children so that they receive legacies of
equal value. In addition, [appellants] seek a
declaratory judgment that the provisions of a
Shareholder Agreement by and between Ann and the
Luciani children govern the distribution of the
Wayne Crushed stock. They seek this relief because
they believe that [Nealon] seeks to enrich herself at
the expense of her siblings and the expense of the
other Trust beneficiaries. [Nealon], [appellants]
state, has thus far ignored the Superior Court’s
findings, and she also has failed to follow the
provisions of the Trust instrument and the
Shareholder Agreement as it pertains to the
Wayne Crushed stock held by the Trust.
The parents of [appellants] and [Nealon] are
John, Sr., who passed away testate in April of 2002,
and Ann Nancy Luciani, who died in April of 2012.
After the 2002 death of John, Sr.[,] his Will was filed
for probate, and his wife and four children were the
named legatees under the Will, and they also were
named Beneficiaries under the terms of John, Sr.’s
1993 Revocable Trust. John, Jr. and [Nealon] were
named Co-Executors under John, Sr.’s Will, and the
other two children, Christopher and Jill, were
appointed Trustees under the 1993 Trust. At
John, Sr.’s death, his estate bequeathed
-2-
J. A24040/18
$1,156,084.00 to that Trust, and the Trust also
retained $942,000.00 worth of stock in Concrete Step
and Wayne Crushed. Pursuant to distributions in 2003
and 2006, Christopher and Jill, as Trustees,
transferred the entirety of the Trust’s principal to their
mother, Ann. In litigation regarding the Estate of
John, Sr., John, Jr. filed a Petition requesting that
[Nealon], as de facto Trustee, along with Christopher
and Jill, as named Trustees, file a First and Final
Account of the administration of the Estate of
John, Sr. Jill Mooty (Jill) complied, filing an Account
showing that the Trust’s principal, including all of the
stock in Concrete Step and Wayne Crushed, was
distributed to Ann.
Objections to the Account were filed by [appellants],
and a hearing was conducted before the undersigned.
Along with dismissing [Nealon] as a de facto Trustee,
this Court denied all Objections. On appeal to the
Superior Court, Chris[topher] maintained that the
distributions of stock were inappropriate, under the
terms of the Trust, and the Superior Court disagreed,
stating:
Based on the certified record before us,
we cannot say that the children were
ultimately treated disparately. In fact, we
cannot even ascertain how the principal of
[John, Sr.’s] Trust was ultimately
distributed. Mother’s trust agreement is
not in the record. Nor is any accounting
of her estate or trust.
Why [sic] it is possible that the
distribution to Mother of the entirety of
the principal of [John, Sr.’s] Trust, for the
undisputed purpose of estate planning,
was not entirely authorized by the trust,
that conclusion cannot be reached without
a finding that Mother’s estate plan was not
in accordance with the stated intent of
[John, Sr.’s] trust. Furthermore, there is
no allegation, and no proof, that Mother
-3-
J. A24040/18
dissipated these assets in a manner that
defeated [John, Sr.’s] Trust’s purposes.
....
The certified record contains no evidence
that Mother’s inter vivos gifts, estate,
and trust distributions did not treat the
children equally. Therefore, Christopher
did not establish his right to relief, and is
due no relief on this issue on appeal.
In regard to Ann, her death occurred on April 5, 2012.
She left a Will executed in October of 2011, which was
admitted to probate in the Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial
Circuit, in or in the vicinity of Lake County, Florida.
Christopher presented in that Florida Circuit Court a
Petition seeking that his mother’s Will be revoked
from probate. During litigation regarding Ann’s
Estate, the parties stipulated, and the Court
correspondingly Ordered, that if the Court found Ann’s
2011 Will to be valid, then the 2011 Trust would be
valid as well; along those same lines, the parties
stipulated that if the Will was determined to be invalid,
then the Trust would be as well.
A trial was held in Florida regarding Christopher’s
Petition for Revocation. [Nealon] moved midway
through the trial for an involuntary dismissal, based
upon what she maintained was that [Christopher] had
shown no right to relief. The Lake County Florida
Court agreed, and granted [Nealon’s] Motion and the
case was involuntarily dismissed on February 25,
2014. By final decision, dated March 10, 2014, the
Lake County Florida Court [o]rdered that
Mrs. Luciani’s 2001 Will remained admitted to
probate. Because of the stipulation regarding the
validity or invalidity of the trust was connected to the
Will, the Court further determined that Ann’s 2011
Trust Agreement was valid.
In June of 2016, [Nealon] filed a First and Final
Account of Personal Representative in the Estate of
her late mother. The document was filed in Florida,
-4-
J. A24040/18
and it included as assets seven thousand five hundred
shares of Concrete Step stock, and seventy-nine
shares of Wayne Crushed. [Nealon] also filed a
Petition for Discharge in the Ann Luciani Estate, and
in the Petition, asked that distribution be made to the
Trust of Ann Luciani included the seven thousand five
hundred shares, and the seventy[-]nine shares. The
Petition for Discharge was properly served, and no
Objections were timely filed to that Petition. [On]
October 20, 2016, as no Objections were filed to the
Account and Petition for Discharge, the Lake County
Florida Court entered an Order of Discharge in the
Ann Luciani Estate, ruling that the Estate was fully
administered and properly distributed.
[Appellants] maintain that the Luciani Children have
not been treated equally by the Ann Luciani Trust with
respect to the Concrete Step shares that she received
from John, Sr.’s Trust during her lifetime. They
further maintain that the Trust of Ann, which now
holds the Wayne Crushed and Concrete Step shares,
should not be distributed in accordance with the
provisions of Ann’s Trust, but in accordance with the
Superior Court’s Memorandum Opinion of
November 21, 2016, a ruling which in fact affirmed
our Court’s earlier rulings with respect to this
litigation. The purpose of the instant declaratory
judgment matter is, according to [appellants], not to
invalidate the stock shares distributed to either Ann
or Ann’s Trust, and [appellants] are not challenging
any determination of the Florida Court with respect to
Ann’s Estate or Trust. The purpose of this proceeding,
according to [appellants], is to obtain declaratory
judgment that the Concrete Step shares distributed
from John, Sr. Trust to either the Estate of Ann
Luciani, or the Trust of Ann Luciani, must now be
distributed to the Luciani Children, ensuring equal
treatment. . . .
....
The First Preliminary Objection presented by [Nealon]
is that, based on Pa. O.C. Rule 3.9(b)(1), the Petition
should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, since
-5-
J. A24040/18
the Ann Luciani Trust Agreement designates that the
situs of the Trust is in Florida, and the Trust
Agreement is also governed by the laws of Florida.
Trial court opinion, 2/6/18 at 1-4.
In an order dated February 6, 2018, and filed on February 8, 2018, the
trial court sustained the preliminary objection regarding lack of jurisdiction
and dismissed the declaratory judgment action. The trial court filed an opinion
that same day. On March 9, 2018, appellants filed a notice of appeal. The
trial court did not order appellants to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellants raise the following issues for this court’s review:
1. Did the [trial] Court err as a matter of law in
sustaining appellee’s preliminary objections by
finding that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate
appellants’ claim?
2. Was the statement by a panel of this Court in a
related case that the “. . . Trust gave the
trustees significant discretion in how to
distribute the principal of the Trust, so long as
the distribution was done in a manner that
ultimately treated [the children] equally” dicta
or decisional?
Appellant’s brief at 4.
Initially, appellants contend that the trial court erred as a matter of law
when it sustained appellee’s preliminary objection finding that it lacked
jurisdiction.
Our analysis begins with a recitation of the applicable
legal standards:
-6-
J. A24040/18
Our standard of review of an order of the
trial court overruling [or granting]
preliminary objections is to determine
whether the trial court committed an error
of law. When considering the
appropriateness of a ruling on preliminary
objections, the appellate court must apply
the same standard as the trial court.
De Lage Landen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Urban P’ship,
LLC, 903 A.2d 586, 589 (Pa.Super. 2006). “On an
appeal from an [o]rder sustaining preliminary
objections, we accept as true all well-pleaded material
facts set forth in the appellant’s complaint and all
reasonable inferences which may be drawn from those
facts.” Filipovich v. J.T. Imports, Inc., 431
Pa.Super. 552, 637 A.2d 314, 316 (1994). “Where,
as here, upholding sustained preliminary objections
would result in the dismissal of an action, we may do
so only in cases that are clear and free from doubt.”
Ellenbogen v. PNC Bank, N.A., 731 A.2d 175, 181
(Pa.Super. 1999). “Any doubt should be resolved by
a refusal to sustain the objections.” Id.“[I]t is well-settled that the question of subject matter
jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any party,
or by the court sua sponte.” B.J.D. v. D.L.C., 19
A.3d 1081, 1082 (Pa.Super. 2011) (quoting Grom v.
Burgoon, 448 Pa.Super. 616, 672 A.2d 823, 824-25
(1996)). Our standard of review is de novo, and our
scope of review is plenary. Id. “Generally, subject
matter jurisdiction has been defined as the court’s
power to hear cases of the class to which the case at
issue belongs.” Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d
792, 798 (Pa.Super. 1999).
Jurisdiction is the capacity to pronounce a
judgment of the law on an issue brought
before the court through due process of
law. It is the right to adjudicate
concerning the subject matter in a given
case. . . . Without such jurisdiction, there
is no authority to give judgment and one
so entered is without force or effect. The
-7-
J. A24040/18
trial court has jurisdiction if it is
competent to hear or determine
controversies of the general nature of the
matter involved sub judice. Jurisdiction
lies if the court had power to enter upon
the inquiry, not whether it might
ultimately decide that it could not give
relief in the particular case.
Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 767 A.2d 564,
568 (Pa.Super. 2001) (quoting Bernhard v.
Bernhard, 447 Pa.Super. 118, 668 A.2d 546, 548
(1995)).
Estate of Gentry v. Diamond Rock Hill Realty, LLC, 111 A.3d 194, 198
(Pa.Super. 2015).
Appellee brought her preliminary objection on the basis that the trial
court lacked jurisdiction to hear appellants’ petition. (Trustee Nancy Nealon’s
preliminary objections to the petition for citation to show cause why
declaratory relief with regard to the Revocable Agreement of Trust of
Ann Nancy Luciani dated October 4, 2011 should not be entered, 7/3/17 at
7-8.)
Appellants argue that this case does not involve the validity of the
Revocable Agreement of Trust of Ann Nancy Luciani dated October 4, 2011
(“Ann Trust”) or the interpretation of the provisions of the Ann Trust.
Appellants argue that what is at issue is the distribution of the Concrete Step
shares. (Appellants’ brief at 13.) Further, appellants assert that the trial court
has subject matter jurisdiction over an inter vivos trust. (Id. at 14.)
-8-
J. A24040/18
This court does not agree with these assertions. While the Orphans’
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over an inter vivos trust, see
Section 711 of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code (“Code”),
20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711, it does not have a claim of jurisdiction over any trust
entered in any state across the country. Appellants argue that Pennsylvania,
rather than Florida, has jurisdiction over Nealon because she is a Pennsylvania
resident. (Appellants’ brief at 15.)
Section 714 of the Code, 20 Pa.C.S.A. §714, provides that nothing in
the chapter of the Code regarding orphans’ courts shall be construed to
interfere with rules of law applicable to the determination of whether a
Pennsylvania court has jurisdiction over the subject matter enumerated in the
chapter.
Although not binding on this court as it is the decision of the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, In re Holdeen’s Trust, 58 Pa. D. &
C.2d 602 (Philadelphia Cty. 1972), assists this court in its analysis. In
Holdeen, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County determined that
it had jurisdiction to decide questions relating to petitions for declaratory
judgment and petitions for the reformation of trust instruments. The common
pleas court reached this decision even though Jonathan Holdeen, the settlor
of the trust at issue, lived in New York for most of his life, was a resident of
that state when he created the trust, and was a resident of New York when he
died. For the Holdeen court, the key factors were that the settlor expressed
-9-
J. A24040/18
his intention in the trust documents that the assets of the trusts be held in
Pennsylvania and that the trusts be administered in either Pennsylvania or
Massachusetts. The trustees chose Pennsylvania. In addition, the chief
remainderman of the trust was the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
substantial assets were held in Pennsylvania. The common pleas court also
held that the questions of the validity of a trust provision was a question of
Pennsylvania law which Pennsylvania courts were best equipped to resolve.
Holdeen, 58 D. & C.2d at 614, 616. The common pleas court determined
that a trust settlor has the right to choose the jurisdiction in which his or her
trust is to be administered and that choice is not limited to the state where
the assets of the trust are located. Id. at 616-617.
Similarly, though not binding on this court, the trial court relied on
Saffan v. Saffan, 588 So.2d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991). In Saffan, the
District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District held that where the
grantor of a trust was a Florida resident; the trust was executed in Florida;
the trustee of the trust was a resident of Florida; the trust contained a
provision that it would be administered in accordance with Florida law; the
trust corpus contained property purchased and owned by the grantor while a
Florida resident; and the trust was administered in Florida, the situs of the
trust rested in Florida. The Saffan court also held that the situs is not affected
by an out-of-state residence by the trustee to the extent appellants argue that
Nealon is not a Florida resident.
- 10 -
J. A24040/18
Here, Ann Luciani, the grantor of the trust, was a resident of Florida.
Her estate was opened and the will was probated in Florida. Further, the trust
was settled in Florida and assets were conveyed pursuant to the trust terms
in Florida. Appellants concede in the petition that Ann Luciani died with her
domicile in Florida and that the trust instrument designates Florida as the situs
of the trust and that all questions regarding the validity, construction, and
administration of the trust come under Florida law. All of these factors support
a conclusion that Florida, not Pennsylvania, had jurisdiction over the trust.
Furthermore, the trial court also addressed the fact that the will of
Ann Luciani was contested in Florida courts; and in the course of the litigation,
there was a stipulation that if the will was determined to be valid, then the
Ann Trust would be determined to be valid. The trial court concluded that
appellants1 had no authority to admit to the validity of the trust in one state
and then to challenge its validity in another:
Further, matters regarding the Estate of Ann Luciani
were litigated in the state of Florida, as [Nealon]
reminds this Court, and the Trust was in fact held to
be valid by the Lake County Florida Court. The Trust
Agreement identified Ann Luciani as a resident of Lady
Lake, Florida. Citing 20 Pa. C.S.A. § 7708(a) and
Saffan v. Saffan, 588 So.2d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1991), a case which held that where Grantor, a Florida
resident who intended for jurisdiction over Grantor’s
Trust to be in Florida, [Nealon] asks that the Petition
pending before our Court be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Again, the Estate and Trust of
Ann Luciani were litigated to conclusion in Florida,
1 Actually, Christopher Luciani was the only appellant to contest the validity
of the will in Florida.
- 11 -
J. A24040/18
several years ago. The Will and Trust of Ann were
deemed valid. Administration was completed, and
distribution followed. A Court Order closed the
matter.
While the Court understands [appellants’] assertions
that the ultimate distribution of the Estates and Trusts
of each of their parents proved to be more favorable
to [Nealon] than to them, we have come across no
statute or decisional authority which allows heirs or
beneficiaries who are dissatisfied with the
administration and finalization of any estate in one
state, including the litigation before and adjudication
of legal questions by a court of that one state, to file
an action concerning the same Decedent’s Estate in a
Court of another state. Although various courts may
sometimes have concurrent jurisdiction with respect
to certain matters, a court’s jurisdiction should
ordinarily not be exercised so as to conflict with the
jurisdiction of another court, and a court should not
interfere in a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction
of another court. Com. Ex rel. Rosequist v.
Rosequist, 268 A.2d 140 (Pa. Super. 1970); Trout
v. Lukey, 166 A.2d 654 ([Pa.] 1961). The instant
declaratory judgment seeking review of Ann Luciani’s
Estate and Trust, which were litigated previously in
Florida and found to be valid, as asking the Court of
Common Pleas to essentially overturn Orders of the
Lake County Florida Court. [Appellants’] requests in
fact raise the issues of res judicata and collateral
estoppel, but the Court need not explore those
principles in the context of this Estate, because we
simply lack jurisdiction. The Trust Agreement at issue
is a Florida Trust that has been ruled valid in Florida
by a Florida Court. The Petition for declaratory
judgment is invalid, and we will, in the attached
Order, grant [Nealon’s] preliminary objection
concerning jurisdiction and dismiss this action.
Trial court opinion, 2/6/18, at 5.
Based on the record before this court, the applicable statutes and case
law, and the parties’ briefs, this court determines that the trial court did not
- 12 -
J. A24040/18
commit an error of law when it sustained Nealon’s preliminary objection for
lack of jurisdiction and dismissed appellants’ petition.2
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/1/2019
2 As we affirm the trial court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to
adjudicate appellants’ petition, we need not address appellants’ remaining
issue.
- 13 -