Paige, S. v. Papaleo, F. ( 2022 )

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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.
____________________________________________
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).
-5-
J-S31019-21
at 26). Appellant maintains that the Orphans’ Court possessed mandatory
jurisdiction over this dispute, and the Civil Trial Division erred by failing to
transfer the matter after Appellee properly raised the issue of jurisdiction in
his preliminary objections. Appellant also notes that the issue of subject
matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Appellant concludes that this
Court must vacate the judgment in favor of Appellee and remand the matter
for further proceedings in the Orphans’ Court. We agree.
“It 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. Our standard
of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary.” In re Estate of
Ciuccarelli, 81 A.3d 953, 958 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). “The assessment of ‘whether a court has subject
matter jurisdiction inquires into the competency of the court to determine
controversies of the general class to which the case presented for
consideration belongs.’” Assouline v. Reynolds, 656 Pa. 133, ___, 219 A.3d
1131, 1137 (2019) (quoting Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v.
Vukman, 621 Pa. 192, 197-98, 77 A.3d 547, 550 (2013)).
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 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
-6-
J-S31019-21
not give relief in the particular case.
Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra at 958 (quoting Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum,
L.P., 767 A.2d 564, 568 (Pa.Super. 2001)).
The jurisdiction of Orphans’ Court is governed by statute, in pertinent
part, as follows:
§ 711. Mandatory exercise of jurisdiction through
orphans’ court division in general
Except as provided in section 712 (relating to
nonmandatory exercise of jurisdiction through the orphans’
court division) and section 713 (relating to special
provisions for Philadelphia County), the jurisdiction of the
court of common pleas over the following shall be exercised
through its orphans’ court division:
(1) Decedents’ estates.—The administration
and distribution of the real and personal property of
decedents’ estates and the control of the decedent’s
burial.
* * *
(12) Fiduciaries.—The appointment, control,
settlement of the accounts of, removal and discharge of,
and allowance to and allocation of compensation among,
all fiduciaries of estates and trusts, jurisdiction of which
is exercised through the orphans’ court division, except
that the register shall continue to grant letters
testamentary and of administration to personal
representatives as heretofore.
* * *
20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711(1), (12).
“Taken together, these provisions mandate that the Orphans’ Court
Division has ‘exclusive jurisdiction of the administration and distribution of
-7-
J-S31019-21
decedents’ estates, of the control of estate fiduciaries, and of the settlement
of their accounts.’” Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra at 958 (quoting Ostroff v.
Yaslyk, 419 Pa. 183, 186, 213 A.2d 272, 274 (1965)). See also Lucidore
v. Novak, 570 A.2d 93, 95 (Pa.Super. 1990) (stating “it is incorrect to file a
complaint in the civil division seeking to set aside the will”). “It is well-settled
that ‘[t]he court of common pleas, even as a court of equity, cannot interfere
in a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court.’” Estate
of Ciuccarelli, supra at 961-62 (quoting Trout v. Lukey, 402 Pa. 123, 126,
166 A.2d 654, 655 (1961)).
Further, the Judicial Code provides the proper remedy for matters that
are commenced in the wrong court division:
§ 5103. Transfer of erroneously filed matters
(a) General rule.—If an appeal or other matter is
taken to or brought in a court or magisterial district of this
Commonwealth which does not have jurisdiction of the
appeal or other matter, the court or magisterial district
judge shall not quash such appeal or dismiss the matter, but
shall transfer the record thereof to the proper tribunal of this
Commonwealth, where the appeal or other matter shall be
treated as if originally filed in the transferee tribunal on the
date when the appeal or other matter was first filed in a
court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth. A matter
which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or
magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth but which
is commenced in any other tribunal of this Commonwealth
shall be transferred by the other tribunal to the proper court
or magisterial district of this Commonwealth where it shall
be treated as if originally filed in the transferee court or
magisterial district of this Commonwealth on the date when
first filed in the other tribunal.
* * *
-8-
J-S31019-21
(c) Interdivisional transfers.—If an appeal or other
matter is taken to, brought in, or transferred to a division of
a court to which such matter is not allocated by law, the
court shall not quash such appeal or dismiss the matter, but
shall transfer the record thereof to the proper division of the
court, where the appeal or other matter shall be treated as
if originally filed in the transferee division on the date first
filed in a court or magisterial district.
* * *
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(a), (c). See also Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra (holding
Civil Trial Division lacked authority to dismiss claims related to management
of escrowed assets against administratrix of decedent’s estate for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction; Civil Trial Division was statutorily obligated to
transfer case to Orphans’ Court, because Orphans’ Court had mandatory and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear case).
Instantly, the trial court did not provide any substantive analysis
regarding the issue of subject matter jurisdiction:
Items one, two and six in [Appellant’s Rule] 1925(b)
Statement concern whether this case should have been
transferred to the Orphans’ Court Division…. What
[Appellant] does not say or acknowledge is that she filed
this case in the Civil Trial Division. [Appellee] filed the
Preliminary Objections to transfer the case to the Orphans’
Court Division. While [Appellant] may have joined in those
Preliminary Objections, [Appellant] filed her case in this
[c]ourt. It is absurd that she would now claim the [c]ourt
committed error by failing to transfer her case to the
Orphans’ Court Division.
(Trial Court Opinion at 10).
Contrary to the court’s assertion, the fact that Appellant filed her
-9-
J-S31019-21
amended complaint in the Civil Trial Division is not determinative of whether
transfer was required. Appellant’s amended complaint, brought in her
capacity as the executor of Decedent’s estate, alleged that Appellee
improperly “sold-off” Decedent’s personal property “without accounting to”
Appellant. (Amended Complaint at ¶8). Appellant’s claim speaks to the
administration and distribution of the personal property of Decedent’s estate,
and the subject matter of the claim falls under the Orphans’ Court Division’s
statutory grant of exclusive jurisdiction. See 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711(1); Estate
of Ciuccarelli, supra. See also In re Thomas’ Estate, 457 Pa. 546, 327
A.2d 31 (1974) (explaining jurisdiction of Orphans’ Court is entirely of
statutory origin vesting it with exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership
of personal property registered in name of decedent or alleged by personal
representative to have been in possession of decedent at time of death).
Because the Orphans’ Court Division has exclusive and mandatory
jurisdiction, the Civil Trial Division should have transferred the instant case
following the preliminary objections to subject matter jurisdiction. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(a), (c); Estate of Ciuccarelli, supra. Consequently, we
vacate the judgment entered in favor of Appellee and remand the case to the
Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
which may proceed in a manner consistent with this decision.
Judgment vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
- 10 -
J-S31019-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/28/2022
- 11 -