J-A27026-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE CONNIE GRECO, AN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
INCAPACITATED PERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF ARTHUR REDGRAVE,
ESQUIRE, TRUSTEE OF THE CONNIE
GRECO REVOCABLE TRUST
No. 812 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered February 6, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Orphans' Court at No: 15-X3145
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2019
Appellant, Arthur Redgrave, trustee of the Connie Greco Revocable Trust
(“Trustee”), filed this appeal following a February 6, 2018 order authorizing
Denise Valerio, Greco’s guardian (Guardian”), to make payments for legal fees
and other services provided to Greco. In his brief, Trustee asserts boilerplate
objections to the Orphans’ Court’s February 6, 2018 order and attempts to
challenge an order that he never appealed: a January 25, 2018 order
permitting Guardian to seek revocation of the Trust in Palm Beach County,
Florida. We affirm.
J-A27026-18
Greco is incapacitated and lives with one of her daughters, Phyllis Bucci,
in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.1 In February 2017, after protracted
litigation in Florida between members of Greco’s family, the litigants entered
into a settlement agreement that (1) provided payment of over $300,000.00
to various attorneys, (2) designated Denise Valerio (“Guardian”) as plenary
permanent guardian of Greco’s person and estate, and (3) directed Trustee to
distribute $20,000.00 per month from the Trust to Guardian for Greco’s care
and maintenance. Paragraph 19 of the agreement authorized Guardian to
“consult periodically with [Trustee] as to [Greco’s] ongoing financial needs.”
On April 7, 2017, the Orphans’ Court of Montgomery County formally
appointed Guardian as guardian of Greco’s person and estate. Subsequently,
Guardian requested an increase in monthly funding from Trustee. Trustee
refused.
In late 2017, Guardian filed a petition requesting the Orphans’ Court to
grant Guardian authority to revoke the Trust. Trustee filed an objection to
Guardian’s petition. On January 25, 2018, the Orphans’ Court granted
Guardian leave to seek revocation of the Trust but stated that “the issue of
revocation must be resolved . . . by the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial District
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, which has jurisdiction over the Trust.”
Trustee did not appeal this order.
____________________________________________
1 Trustee alleges that Bucci “essentially kidnapp[ed]” Greco from her Florida
residence against her will. Appellant’s Brief at 6.
-2-
J-A27026-18
In late 2017, several persons and entities filed petitions with the
Orphans’ Court requesting fees for services performed for Greco or Guardian.
These petitions were as follows:
1. Attorney Diane Zabowski, Esquire sought $3,023.00 for legal services
as Greco’s court-appointed attorney;
2. Montco Elder Law’s petition sought $7,787.89 for legal services
relating to Greco’s benefit;
3. Valerio Care Management’s petition sought $10,426.19 for
Guardian’s services to Greco;
4. Attorney Arkadiy Grinshpun, Esquire’s petition seeking $11,263.12
for legal services to Guardian; and
5. Attorney Audra Simovitch, Esquire’s petition seeking $2,640.00 for
legal services to Guardian.
Trustee objected to each petition. On February 6, 2018, following an
evidentiary hearing, the Orphans’ Court granted all five petitions and
authorized all expenditures. The Orphans’ Court criticized the Trustee as
“imprudent” and “imprudent in the extreme” for opposing the petitions’
“modest” requests. Opinion and Order, 2/6/18, at 3-4. The Orphans’ Court
further observed:
This Court does not have jurisdiction over Connie Greco’s
revocable trust, which has its situs in Florida, and cannot order
[Trustee] to make distributions. This Court, however, does have
jurisdiction to approve as reasonable an annual or monthly budget
to be spent by [Guardian] to meet Connie Greco’s needs, including
a reasonable amount for [Guardian’s] fees and for counsel fees.
-3-
J-A27026-18
Approval of such a budget by this Court is expressly recognized in
the parties’ agreement. Some evidence was presented at the
hearing that established that the monthly expenditures from the
guardianship account, including the payment of [Guardian]’s fees
and counsel fees, exceeds the $20,000 monthly distribution from
Connie Greco’s revocable trust. However, [Guardian] shall submit
a petition requesting Court approval of a proposed budget. It will
be up to [Trustee] to make distributions sufficient to meet Connie
Greco’s needs, or, if he fails to distribute Ms. Greco’s funds to
meet her needs, it will be up to a Florida court to determine
whether [Trustee] has acted unreasonably in failing to increase
the amount distributed to a sufficient amount to pay the
reasonable expenses of Connie Greco.
Opinion and Order, at 6.
On March 8, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of appeal from the February 6,
2018 order. The Orphans’ Court did not order Trustee to comply with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On March 19, 2018, the Orphans’ Court filed a supplemental opinion
that stated:
Although Connie Greco is living in Pennsylvania, her trust has its
situs in Florida and has been the subject of proceedings in the
probate division of the Palm Beach County Court there. That Court
has specifically retained jurisdiction over the [T]rust. This is
significant in the matter sub judice because the Court order under
appeal does not direct [Trustee]’s actions in any way and does not
impact the [Trust’s] administration. It simply finds that certain
expenditures made to support Ms. Greco were reasonable and
necessary, and permits the Pennsylvania [G]uardian to pay the
bills that have come due. In approving [Guardian]’s proposals,
this Court has not tried to exercise jurisdiction over [Trustee] or
the [T]rust and has not ordered [Trustee] to do anything. If it
becomes necessary to resort to litigation to obtain funds from
[Trustee], [Guardian] will have to proceed in Florida.
Supplemental Opinion, 3/19/18, at 1-2.
-4-
J-A27026-18
On March 28, 2018, Guardian requested the Orphans’ Court to order
Trustee to increase Guardian’s monthly distributions to $22,000.00 per month
for Greco’s care and maintenance. On April 19, 2018, the Orphans’ Court
granted Guardian’s petition, noting that there was no response to Guardian’s
request.
Trustee raises two issues in this appeal:
1. Did the [Orphans’] Court lack jurisdiction to conclude that “a
petition seeking to revoke the Florida Trust is in the best interest
of [the beneficiary]” and by awarding legal fees associated with a
guardian seeking to revoke the trust?
2. Does a trustee have standing to appeal a Pennsylvania order
that substantially impacts the trust he administers?
Trustee’s Brief at 5.
In his first argument, Trustee asserts that the Orphans’ Court
overstepped its bounds by opining that the Trust should be revoked, a matter
that Trustee claims lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Palm Beach
County, Florida court. We disagree. The February 6, 2018 order is the only
order that Trustee appealed. The only issue that the Orphans’ Court decided
in this order was whether to permit Guardian to pay various fees for services.
To be sure, the Orphans’ Court mentioned revocation in its previous
order dated January 25, 2018, but even then, it did not opine that the Trust
should be revoked. Instead, the January 25, 2018 order merely authorized
Guardian to seek revocation of the Trust in Florida. Moreover, shortly after
the January 25, 2018 order, the Orphans’ Court issued two opinions stating
-5-
J-A27026-18
that it was only exercising jurisdiction over Guardian, not the Trust. Opinion
and Order, 2/6/18, at 6; Supplemental Opinion, 3/19/18, at 1-2. The
Orphans’ Court expressly declined to state any view on whether the Trust
should be revoked; it left that issue to the Florida court, the lone forum that
has jurisdiction over the Trust. Id. Therefore, Trustee’s first argument lacks
merit.
In his second argument, Trustee claims that he has standing to appeal
the February 6, 2018 order because it affects the Trust. We need not analyze
whether Trustee has standing because of a separate defect: his total failure
to demonstrate any error by the Orphans’ Court. Trustee objects that the five
fee petitions “gave insufficient explanations for the requested amounts” and
“seemed excessive,” Trustee’s Brief at 17, but he fails to provide any detail in
support of this claim. In just a single sentence, Trustee claims that it was
“disturbing” that the Orphans’ Court declined to order an accounting as to how
Guardian was spending her monthly allotment of $20,000.00. Id. Since he
does not bother to support this claim, we find it devoid of merit.2 Next, again
in just a single sentence, Trustee objects to the Orphans’ Court’s decision to
grant attorney Grinshpun’s petition for fees. Id. at 17-18. Once again, due
to his failure to flesh out this argument, we find it devoid of merit. Finally,
____________________________________________
2Further, as noted above, on March 28, 2018, the Orphans’ Court approved
Guardian’s proposed budget raising her monthly allotment to $22,000.00.
Review of the docket establishes that Trustee did not appeal this order.
-6-
J-A27026-18
Trustee insists that the Orphans’ Court erred by suggesting that the Trust
should be revoked. As discussed above, the court did no such thing; it left
that issue for the Florida court to resolve.
For these reasons, we affirm the Orphans’ Court’s February 6, 2018
order.3
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/21/19
____________________________________________
3 While this matter was pending, Appellant filed an application for permission
to file a post-argument communication. Pa.R.A.P. 2501 allows post-
submission communications if there is a change in status of authorities relied
upon in the briefs. Appellant does not allege any change of status of
authorities. Therefore, the application is denied.
-7-