J-S30032-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE MATTER OF: THE ESTATE OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
REGINALD M. WATKINS, DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: RONALD K. WATKINS :
:
:
:
: No. 69 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Entered August 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): Docket # 021406205
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 21, 2020
Appellant Ronald K. Watkins appeals from the decree and schedule of
distribution of the estate of his deceased brother, Reginald Watkins
(“Decedent”). After careful review, we affirm the Orphans’ Court decree.
On August 27, 2014, Decedent died intestate, survived by his wife
Debbie Watkins (“Administratrix”), who was granted Letters of Administration
for the estate, as well as his daughter, India McCoy (“Daughter”).
Administratrix is the Daughter’s stepmother.
On May 9, 2018, Administratrix filed a first and final account along with
a petition for adjudication and a statement of proposed distribution. On May
18, 2018, Appellant filed objections to the account, asserting that
Administratrix had not conducted a complete accounting and suggested that
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S30032-20
Decedent had previously made a will that designated Appellant as the primary
beneficiary of his estate. Administratrix filed a reply indicating that Appellant
failed to provide Decedent’s alleged will for probate despite several requests
for him to do so.
After holding a conference with all parties present, on September 30,
2018, the Orphans’ Court filed on order dismissing Appellant’s objections. The
Orphans’ Court reasoned that Appellant lacked standing to file objections
given that Decedent had died intestate and was survived by his wife and
daughter.
On August 29, 2019, the Orphans’ Court entered a decree distributing
the estate of the Decedent. On September 10, 2019, Appellant filed an
exception to the decree, claiming Administratrix had fraudulently obtained the
decree in failing to submit all relevant documents to the court. On September
10, 2019, the Orphans’ Court entered an order denying Appellant’s
exceptions. On January 14, 2020, Appellant filed this appeal.
As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether this appeal was
timely filed. As a general rule, a “notice of appeal … shall be filed within 30
days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P.
903. Appellant has appealed Orphans’ Court’s August 29, 2019 decree
distributing the estate. See Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(1) (“[a]n appeal may be taken
as of right from the following orders of the Orphans' Court Division ... [a]n
order confirming an account, or authorizing or directing a distribution from an
estate or trust”); Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) (“an appeal may be taken as of right from
-2-
J-S30032-20
any final order of a government unit or trial court”).1 The Orphans’ Court asks
this Court to dismiss this appeal as untimely as Appellant filed his notice of
appeal on January 14, 2020, which was more than thirty days after the
distribution decree.
However, in reviewing the docket in this case, we note that the notice
of the entry of the decree distributing the estate was not given to the parties
as required by our rules of appellate procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 108. This
Court has held that the appeal period does not begin to run when such notice
is not filed:
Rule of Appellate Procedure 108(b) designates the date of entry
of an order as “the day on which the clerk makes the notation in
the docket that notice of entry of the order has been given as
required by Pa.R.C.P. 236(b).” Pa.R.A.P. 108(b) (emphasis
added). Our Supreme Court has held that “an order is not
appealable until it is entered on the docket with the required
notation that appropriate notice has been given.” Frazier v. City
of Philadelphia, 557 Pa. 618, 621, 735 A.2d 113, 115 (1999)
(emphasis added). Where there is no indication on the docket that
Rule 236(b) notice has been given, then the appeal period has not
started to run. Id. at 621–22, 735 A.2d at 115. Our Supreme
Court has expressly held that this is a bright-line rule, to be
interpreted strictly. That the appealing party did indeed receive
____________________________________________
1 Appellant’s filing of exceptions to the Orphans’ Court order distributing the
estate had no effect on the appeal period. Orphans’ Court Rule 8.1 provides
that “except as provided in Rule 8.2, no exceptions or post-trial motions may
be filed to any order or decree of the court.” P.O.C. Rule 8.1. Rule 8.2
provides may request the court to reconsider any order that is final under
Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) or 342 … so long as the order granting reconsideration is
consistent with Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3).” P.O.C. Rule 8.2. In addition, the
comment to Rule 8.2 provides that “[t]he period for filing an appeal is not
tolled by the filing of a motion for reconsideration unless the court grants the
motion for reconsideration prior to the expiration of the appeal period.” Id.
(comment).
-3-
J-S30032-20
notice does not alter the rule that the 30–day appeal period is not
triggered until the clerk makes a notation on the docket that notice
of entry of the order has been given. Id.
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 508–509 (Pa.Super. 2007).
As noted above, although the Orphans’ Court entered a final order
distributing the estate, the docket does not contain any indication that notice
of the entry of the order was given to the parties. Thus, the appeal period did
not begin to run and this appeal will not be quashed as untimely filed.
Our standard and scope of review is well-established:
When reviewing a decree entered by the Orphans' Court,
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 Orphans' Court 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. The Orphans' Court decision
will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion
or a fundamental error in applying the correct principles of law.
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 206–207 (Pa.Super. 2012) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
Before reaching the merits of Appellant’s arguments, we note that
Appellant’s pro se brief is defective in that it fails to comply with nearly every
requirement in Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(12) and does not contain any
comprehensible factual background, procedural history, citation to authority,
legal argument or analysis. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101
-4-
J-S30032-20
allows this Court to quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellate brief contains
substantial defects. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
While we acknowledge that Appellant is proceeding pro se and we will
construe his brief liberally, he is not entitled to special deference as a pro se
litigant as this Court has held that “[a]ny layperson choosing to represent
[himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the
risk that [his] lack of expertise and legal training will prove [his] undoing.”
Branch Banking & Tr. v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa.Super. 2006).
Specifically, this Court will not act as counsel for the appellant. “When issues
are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly
inadequate to present specific issues for review[,] a Court will not consider
the merits thereof.” Id. at 942–43.
Appellant fails to address the Orphans’ Court’s determination that
Appellant had no standing to file objections to the First and Final Accounting
of the Estate based on his relation to Decedent as his brother, when the
Decedent was survived by his wife and his daughter.2 Moreover, Appellant’s
brief does not contain any comprehensible legal discussion. As a result,
Appellant’s failure to develop his arguments preclude any meaningful judicial
review of this appeal. This Court has consistently held that “failure to develop
an argument with citation to, and analysis of, relevant authority waives that
____________________________________________
2 Pennsylvania’s rules for intestate succession are found in the Chapter 21 of
the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code. See 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2110.
-5-
J-S30032-20
issue on review.” In re Estate of Schumacher, 133 A.3d 45 (Pa.Super.
2016).
As a result, Appellant’s issues are waived on appeal. Therefore, we
affirm the Orphans’ Court’s decree distributing the estate at issue.
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/21/2020
-6-