J-A03019-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF LOTTIE IVY DIXON IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: GEORGE F. DIXON, III AND
RICHARD E. DIXON
No. 591 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered March 10, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Orphans' Court at No: 21-07-0686
BEFORE: MUNDY, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MAY 28, 2015
Appellants, George F. Dixon, III, and Richard Dixon, appeal the
Orphans’ Court’s March 10, 2014 order sustaining in part and overruling in
part their objections to a first partial account of the Trust Under Revocable
Agreement with Lottie Ivy Dixon (the “Trust”). We quash.
The Settlor, Lottie Ivy Dixon (the “Settlor”), executed the Lottie Ivy
Dixon Revocable Trust (the “Trust”) on August 19, 1985. The Trust
beneficiaries were the Settlor’s four children, including Appellants. Settlor
died on June 28, 2007. On June 26, 2013, Appellee/Trustee M&T Bank
(“Trustee”) filed a First and Partial Account of the Trust (the “Account”). The
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A03019-15
Account revealed $1,882,174.01 in principal and $929,323.73 in income was
distributed to Settlor during her lifetime. The Trust’s only remaining asset
was $11,486.72 in income. On July 26, 2013, Appellants filed seventeen
objections to the Account. On September 13, 2013, Trustee filed a motion
to strike the objections, arguing Appellants had no standing to challenge
distributions made during the Settlor’s lifetime because Trustee owed no
duty to Appellants until after her death. The orphans’ court heard oral
argument on October 25, 2013 and issued the order on appeal on March 10,
2014. The orphans’ court overruled fifteen of Appellants’ seventeen
objections. It referred the matter to Trustee to provide an explanation for
minor corrections concerning the distributions identified in the remaining two
objections, after which the account could be confirmed. Appellants filed a
timely notice of appeal on April 1, 2014.
Trustee filed a motion to quash the appeal on May 8, 2014, arguing
the March 10, 2014 is not a final, appealable order. Our first task,
therefore, is to determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.
Rule 342 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an
order confirming an account is appealable as of right. Pa.R.A.P. 342(a). The
order on appeal did not precisely confirm the account. The orphans’ court
explained:
Orphans’ Court Rule 6.1(a) provides, in relevant part, that
an account must specify ‘[t]he dates of all receipts,
disbursements and distributions, the sources of the receipts, and
the persons to whom disbursements and distributions are made
-2-
J-A03019-15
and the purpose thereof shall be stated …’ (emphasis added).
Here, there are two substantial distributions listed as ‘Lottie I.
Dixon – Distribution’ in the amounts of $1,504,230.00 and
$167,700.00 with no explanation of the purpose of the
distributions. In accordance with the Rules, the court will
sustain [Appellants’] objections to these two entries in the
accounting and refer the matter back to M&T to provide an
explanation for the purpose of those two distributions.
Following this minor correction, the accounting may be
confirmed without the appointment of an auditor.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 3/7/14, at 4 (bolded emphasis ours, underscoring
added by the orphans’ court).1 As the orphans’ court’s opinion makes clear,
the change was purely ministerial. Nonetheless, the orphans’ court did not
confirm the Account. Rather, it anticipated confirmation of a slightly revised
account to be filed by the Trustee. Thus, the order on appeal is not final
within the meaning of Rule 342(a)(1), nor does it fit under any other
subsection of Rule 342(a). We therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain this
appeal.2
____________________________________________
1
Appellants represent that the Trustee made the correction and filed the
revised account on May 15, 2014 (Appellants’ Brief at 14). The revised
account is not part of the certified record, nor do we have any indication
whether the orphans’ court found the revisions acceptable.
2
We are cognizant that the issues briefed and argued in this appeal will
arise again as soon as the orphans’ court enters a final order confirming the
revised account. The expense of judicial resources and duplicative effort on
the part of counsel is regrettable, but we lack discretion to overlook the
jurisdictional flaw in Appellants’ appeal. The record does not explain why
Appellants failed to await an appealable final order.
-3-
J-A03019-15
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/28/2015
-4-