J-A22045-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF HENRY STEPHENS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
DECEASED OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: RICHARD C. STEPHENS
No. 2939 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered August 11, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Orphans' Court at No.: 575 of 2013
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED OCTOBER 30, 2017
Appellant, Richard C. Stephens, appeals from the August 11, 2016
order, denying his petition for appeal from the register of wills, in which he
sought to invalidate the last will and testament of the decedent, Henry
Stephens, who was Appellant’s father. For the reasons discussed below, we
affirm.
We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter from
the orphans’ court’s August 11, 2016 opinion and our independent review of
the certified record.
Henry Stephens married his [fourth] wife, [Appellee, Betty
Stephens], on January 17, 1998. Henry Stephens executed his
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A22045-17
[l]ast [w]ill and [t]estament on June 9, 2010. By the terms of the
[w]ill, [Appellee] is the sole beneficiary of Henry Stephens’s
[e]state if she survives him by thirty [] days and is also named
[e]xecutrix of the [e]state. The [w]ill specifically mentions each
piece of real estate owned by Henry Stephens but, most pertinent
to this matter, specifically mentions two [] pieces of real estate
located at 821 South 57th Street, Philadelphia, [Pennsylvania]
(hereinafter referred to as the South 57th Street Property) and 28
North Lindenwood Street, Philadelphia, [Pennsylvania]
(hereinafter referred to as the North Lindenwood Street Property).
Henry Stephens died on August 12, 2015[,] and [Appellee]
was granted [l]etters [t]estamentary on January 26, 2016. Prior
to the [l]etters being granted, [Appellant] filed an informal caveat
to block the probate of the purported [l]ast [w]ill and [t]estament.
[Appellant] then petitioned the [r]egister of [w]ills to extend the
time for filing his formal caveat by seven [] days but that [p]etition
was denied by [d]ecree dated December 14, 2015. After
discussions with [Appellee and her] counsel, [Appellant] withdrew
his caveats by letter dated January 22, 2016. As a result, the
[r]egister of [w]ills entered an [o]rder on January 26, 2016[,]
admitting the [l]ast [w]ill and [t]estament dated June 9, 2010[,]
to probate. [Appellant’s] appeal from probate followed on
February 23, 2016.
In [Appellant’s] [p]etition for [a]ppeal from [r]egister of
[w]ills, [his] primary argument is that two [] properties listed in
the [w]ill—the South 57th Street Property and the North
Lindenwood Street Property—should not be included in Henry
Stephens’s [l]ast [w]ill and [t]estament because those properties
were owned by [Appellant] and his brother, Henry Stephens, Jr.
[Appellant] argues, in the [p]etition, that Henry Stephens forged
the deed to the South 57th Street Property to obtain title in his
name rather than his son’s name, Henry Stephens, Jr. [Appellant]
argues that this alleged fraud took place in 1990. [Appellant]
further argues that Henry Stephens, by including these two []
properties in his [w]ill, stands to invalidate the [w]ill because it
demonstrates that the [d]ecedent was being unduly influenced by
[Appellee] to include the properties in the [w]ill. Nevertheless,
[Appellant] also argues that including the properties in the [w]ill
evidences lack of testamentary capacity.
At the beginning of the trial on the [Appellant’s] [p]etition,
counsel for [Appellee] stipulated that the North Lindenwood Street
-2-
J-A22045-17
Property was incorrectly included in the [w]ill. As to the remainder
of his case, [Appellant] submitted forty-five [] exhibits all of which
were admitted into evidence, called no witnesses, and made
argument. Many of the exhibits submitted into evidence were
documents that were already in the file and of record.
(Orphans’ Court Opinion, 8/11/16, at 1-2).
On August 11, 2016, the orphans’ court denied the petition for appeal.
On August 22, 2016, Appellant filed a post-trial motion. The court denied the
motion on September 6, 2016. The instant, timely appeal followed. The
orphans’ court did not require Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal and did not issue any additional opinion. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following nineteen questions for our
review.1
____________________________________________
1 We express our disapproval that Appellant raised nineteen issues in his
statement of the questions involved. While this Court understands that
Appellant believes that the trial court made numerous errors,
. . . we note that it has been held that when an appellant
raises an extraordinary number of issues on appeal, as in this
case, a presumption arises that there is no merit to them. In
United States v. Hart, 693 F.2d 286, 287 n.1 (3rd Cir. 1982),
the court had an opportunity to address this situation:
Because of the inordinate number of meritless
objections pressed on appeal, spotting the one bona
fide issue was like finding a needle in a haystack. One
of our colleagues has recently cautioned on the
danger of “loquaciousness:”
-3-
J-A22045-17
1. Did the [c]ourt err in presenting a [c]ourt [opinion]: that
was written by those that were [not] at the [t]rial, or did not
review all the pleadings to include [p]reliminary [o]bjections and
[a]nswers to [p]reliminary [o]bjections, and did not review the
[t]ranscripts, or listen to the [c]ourt [a]udio and is it a violation of
[l]aw and [d]ue [p]rocess to formulate an opinion/decision
without such [c]ourt participation or review?
2. Did the [c]ourt err in not acknowledging and considering
the fact that [Appellee] was the fourth [] wife, [twenty] years
junior to the [d]ecedent and not the “second wife” as stated in the
[c]ourt opinion and that the [d]ecedent was [seventy-nine] years
of age and had been suffering from Dementia/Alzheimer’s and
dependent on [] Appellee for everything thus undermining []
Appellant’s argument of [u]ndue [i]nfluence and which in general
detracted from invalidating the [w]ill?
3. Did the [c]ourt err by not acknowledging and considering
the undisputed facts that four [] of the six [] properties were
____________________________________________
With a decade and a half of federal
appellate court experience behind me, I
can say that even when we reverse a trial
court it is rare that a brief successfully
demonstrates that the trial court
committed more than one or two
reversible errors. I have said in open
court that when I read an appellant’s brief
that contains ten or twelve points, a
presumption arises that there is no merit
to any of them. I do not say that this is
an irrebuttable presumption, but it is a
presumption nevertheless that reduces
the effectiveness of appellate advocacy.
Appellate advocacy is measured by
effectiveness, not loquaciousness.
Aldisert, The Appellate Bar: Professional Competence
and Professional Responsibility—A View From the
Jaundiced Eye of One Appellate Judge, 11
Cap.U.L.Rev. 445, 458 (1982).
Estate of Lakatosh, 656 A.2d 1378, 1380 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1995).
-4-
J-A22045-17
liquidated by the [t]estator to include the [m]ain residence, since
1965, at 305 Buck Lane, Haverford that sold for $305,000 in which
all proceeds went to the Appellee’s benefit and thus by the
[decedent’s] [e]xplicit [a]ctions fulfilled his desired obligation and
responsibility thus invalidated the purpose of the [w]ill and
returning the last two properties that were his [s]ons[’] back to
his [s]ons?
4. Did the court err in not acknowledging and considering or
addressing [] Appellant’s specific criteria arguments of [u]ndue
[i]nfluence and [l]ack of [t]estamentary [c]apacity?
5. Did the court err in not acknowledging or considering the
devisavit vel non exception and thus prevented considering critical
testimony and evidence?
6. Did the court err in not acknowledging and considering
the handwriting signatures taken from the two [] notarized
recorded [p]ublic [r]ecord [d]eeds, the seven [] signatures in the
[s]worn [s]tatement of [f]acts, the five [] signatures in the
[c]ontested [w]ill and the signature in the [f]orged [d]eed which
clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt, shows the signatures are
distinctly different and when the [decedent’s] signature made no
attempt to copy or mimic his [s]on’s [s]ignature?
7. Did the court err in not acknowledging and considering
the truthful Haverford Township [i]ncident [r]eports that were
results of the conduct of [r]egular [p]olice [b]usiness in which the
[o]fficer stated ‘No Opinion’ or made ‘No Interpretations’ or made
‘No Speculation’ however listened, observed and recorded the
[p]ublic [r]ecords of Appellee’s issues/needs for assistance and
the [decedent’s] issues/needs for assistance that support existing
facts?
8. Did the court err and was it prejudicial abuse of
discretion, fact and law in stating that [] Appellant admitted to
fraudulent actions in regards to an action in [q]uiet [t]itle?
9. Did the court err in not conducting a [d]ue [d]iligence
[i]nquiry into why the [m]istake was made to include the 28 N[.]
Lindenwood [Street] property in the [d]efective [w]ill and
dismissing the [m]istake because the “[m]istake” was
acknowledged and unchallenged by [] Appellee?
-5-
J-A22045-17
10. Did the [c]ourt err in not considering the original or
authentic deed dated March 4, 1977 to 821 S[.] 57th Street that
was in the name of Henry Stephens, Jr. and that for absolutely no
known reasons, except for perhaps Appellee’s [u]ndue [i]nfluence
or the [decedent] was having difficulty managing the property i.e.
collecting the rental income and because the [decedent] was not
the [o]wner of the property could not get in eviction therefore
transferred title unnaturally by forging the deed from [s]on to
[decedent] October 18, 1990 which the [decedent] believed he
corrected by invalidating the [w]ill by his [e]xplicit [a]ctions of
liquidating all the properties except his [s]on[’]s last two?
11. Did the [c]ourt err in not considering that the first
property of those listed in the [w]ill was sold within [fifty-eight]
days of signing the [w]ill thus calling into question, [d]id the
[decedent] know what he wanted to do with his property at the
signing of the [w]ill? Additionally[,] did the [c]ourt err in not
considering the [m]istake evidence of [l]ack of [t]estamentary
[c]apacity?
12. Did the [c]ourt err in not acknowledging and considering
the fact that these properties were not inherited but were payment
as a result of working in the [f]amily [g]rocery [s]tore all the
Appellant’s youth?
13. Did the [c]ourt err in overruling all the [Appellee’s forty-
two p]reliminary [o]bjections first pass giving consideration to the
Appellant’s [a]nswers to [] Appellee’s [p]reliminary [o]bjections
yet sustaining the same objection in the [c]ourt [o]pinion?
14. Did the [c]ourt err in not considering the fact that the
[i]nformal and [f]ormal [c]aveats were withdrew (sic) as a result
of [m]alicious [a]buse of [p]rocess (extortion) whereby the only
way to retrieve sentimental personal property ([m]other’s [s]elf-
[p]ortrait 1970, other art [and] firearms from Haverford Township
Police) not listed in the [l]etters [t]estamentary was to withdraw
the [c]aveats?
15. Did the [c]ourt err in not considering the facts that the
delinquencies of: [p]roperty [t]axes, [w]ater and [r]efuse
[c]ollection started in 2012 and that in on October 10, 2012
Appellee reported to the Haverford Township Police Department
the deeds to properties listed in the [w]ill were missing and these
delinquencies totals (sic) nearly $20,000 owed to the City of
-6-
J-A22045-17
Philadelphia and that the two properties were slated for [s]heriff’s
[s]ale and that these deeds clearly showed the properties did not
belong to the [decedent] as one deed was forged and the other
property was in [m]other’s name as [t]rustee for [s]ons?
16. Did the [c]ourt err in not considering the fact that []
Appellant’s [m]other purchased all these properties before her
death September 5, 1978?
17. Did the [c]ourt err in not revoking the [r]eal [p]roperty
[p]ortion of the [d]efective [w]ill?
18. Did the [c]ourt err in not verifying that [] Appellee
contact [issues] in the [a]djudication of [i]ncapacitation of the
[decedent] or get permission before entering an agreement to
[s]ells (sic) 305 Buck Lane or get [b]onded for the sale, or not
reviewing the [g]uardian’s [i]nventory or the [g]uardian’s
[a]nnual [r]eports and all the order and conditions required by law
to be in compliance with Pennsylvania [l]aws for [g]uardianship?
19. Did the [c]ourt err in law by knowingly admitting to
[p]robate a [f]alsified [p]etition for [p]robate and did the court err
in law by holding a [t]rial on such known falsified [p]etition
rendering an [opinion] in support of such collusion[?]
(Appellant’s Brief, at 8-11) (record citations and argument omitted).
Appellant appeals from the decision of the orphans’ court denying his
petition to invalidate the will. Our standard of review is settled.
When reviewing a decree entered by the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt,
this Court must determine whether the record is free from legal
error and the court’s factual findings are supported by the
evidence. Because the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt sits as the fact-finder, it
determines the credibility of the witnesses and, on review, we will
not reverse its credibility determinations absent an abuse of that
discretion. However, we are not constrained to give the same
deference to any resulting legal conclusions. Where the rules of
law on which the court relied are palpably wrong or clearly
inapplicable, we will reverse the court’s decree.
-7-
J-A22045-17
In re: Estate of Fuller, 87 A.3d 330, 333 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted). Moreover,
[a]s an appellate court we can modify an [o]rphans’ [c]ourt
decree only if the findings upon which the decree rests are
unsupported by competent or adequate evidence or if there has
been an error of law, an abuse of discretion or a capricious
disbelief of competent evidence. The test to be applied is not
whether we, the reviewing court, would have reached the same
result, but whether a judicial mind, after considering the evidence
as a whole, could reasonably have reached the same conclusion.
In re: Estate of Devoe, 74 A.3d 264, 267 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation
omitted).
In the instant matter, our review of Appellant’s brief reveals an utter
failure to abide by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 states:
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the
circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they
may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or
reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal
or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
We also note Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111, which
states:
(a) General rule.─The brief of the appellant, except as otherwise
prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following matters,
separately and distinctly entitled and in the following order:
(1) Statement of jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
-8-
J-A22045-17
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the standard
of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to challenge
the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if applicable.
(8) Argument for appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions
(b) and (c) of this rule.
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of errors
complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court pursuant to Rule
1925(b), or an averment that no order requiring a statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was
entered.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).
Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119 provides:
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as many
parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the
head of each part—in distinctive type or in type distinctively
displayed—the particular point treated therein, followed by such
discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.
(b) Citations of authorities. Citations of authorities in briefs
shall be in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126 governing citations of
authorities.
(c) Reference to record. If reference is made to the pleadings,
evidence, charge, opinion or order, or any other matter appearing
in the record, the argument must set forth, in immediate
connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a reference to the
-9-
J-A22045-17
place in the record where the matter referred to appears (see
Pa.R.A.P. 2132).
(d) Synopsis of evidence. When the finding of, or the refusal to
find, a fact is argued, the argument must contain a synopsis of all
the evidence on the point, with a reference to the place in the
record where the evidence may be found.
(e) Statement of place of raising or preservation of issues.
Where under the applicable law an issue is not reviewable on
appeal unless raised or preserved below, the argument must set
forth, in immediate connection therewith or in a footnote thereto,
either a specific cross-reference to the page or pages of the
statement of the case which set forth the information relating
thereto as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), or substantially the
same information.
* * *
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(e).
In this case, Appellant has failed to comply with the mandates of Rules
2101, 2111 and 2119. While Appellant’s brief includes statements of
jurisdiction and of the standard and scope of review, they are not proper.
(See Appellant’s Brief, at 1-5). Throughout the brief, Appellant randomly
inserts various photo copies of documents and/or portions of documents
without identifying where they can be found in the certified record. (See id.
at 16, 25, 33-35, 43, 46-47). Appellant’s statement of the case is
argumentative, discursive and not in compliance with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 2117. (See id. at 11-22); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2117. The
summary of argument does not conform with either Appellant’s statement of
the questions involved or his argument section and Appellant’s brief does not
comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2118. (See id. at 23-
- 10 -
J-A22045-17
28). Most importantly, Appellant’s argument does not comply with
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a) because it is all but
incomprehensible, contains minimal citations to relevant legal authority, and
Appellant fails to explain how the bare citations apply to facts in the instant
matter. (See id. at 28-47). Lastly, Appellant’s brief exceeds the page
limitation contained in Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2135(a)(1),
and does not include a certificate of compliance with the word count limit.
(See id. at 1-47).
We have stated, “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed
in briefs, and when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues
for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.” Commonwealth v.
Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa. Super. 1982) (citations omitted). Further,
the fact that Appellant is proceeding pro se does not absolve him of compliance
with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed
by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon
the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent
himself in a legal proceeding, must, to a reasonable extent,
assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his
undoing.
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 918 A.2d 747 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).
Here, the defects in Appellant’s brief are significant and substantially
encumber our appellate review. Accordingly, because Appellant’s brief is
defective to the point that it constitutes a violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2101, we
- 11 -
J-A22045-17
dismiss the appeal and therefore affirm the decision of the orphans’ court.2
See Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super.
2006) (quashing pro se appeal where appellants “ignored the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure . . . [rendering this Court] unable to conduct a
meaningful review.”); Sanford, supra at 150; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the orphans’ court.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/30/2017
____________________________________________
2 Moreover, we have thoroughly reviewed the orphans’ court opinion, the
briefs of both parties, and the certified record and we discern neither an abuse
of discretion nor an error of law in the court’s decision, which correctly
disposes of Appellant’s claims of mistake, forgery, fraud, lack of testamentary
capacity, and undue influence. (See Orphans’ Ct. Op., at 3-5). Thus, even if
were to address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we would have no basis to
overturn the orphans’ court’s decision. See Fuller, supra at 333; Devoe,
supra at 267.
- 12 -