J-S35006-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF PETER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
HNATUSKO : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: JANINE CRISSEY : No. 830 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered May 28, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 2020-01261
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 30, 2021
Appellant, Janine Crissey, appeals pro se from the order entered on May
28, 2021. We dismiss this appeal.
The Orphans’ Court ably summarized the underlying facts and
procedural posture of this appeal:
Peter Hnatusko (“decedent”) died on November 11, 2020,
leaving at least two wills: one executed on June 9, 2017, and
another executed on November 6, 2019. The 2017 will
named [Appellant] executrix of the estate, and gave [ten
percent] of the estate to the decedent’s daughter-in-law,
Stephanie Hnatusko, and the remainder to [Appellant]. The
2017 will also stated that it was [decedent’s] express desire
not to include his other two daughters, Laura Filingo and
Denise Hnatusko, in his property bequest. . . .
The 2019 will named Ronald James Legg, Jr., a friend of the
decedent’s, executor as well as a beneficiary to receive the
decedent’s [pickup] trucks. In the 2019 will, the decedent
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35006-21
bequeathed the residual of the estate to Ruthenian Greek
Catholic Church of St. Wolodymir of Scranton, PA, a/k/a
Vladimir Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, where he was a
parishioner, and ALSAC/St. Jude’s Children’s Research
Hospital. In the 2019 will, the decedent also revoked all
former wills.
On December 17, 2020, Mr. Legg filed a Petition for a Citation
to be issued to Denise Hnatusko, [Appellant,] and Laura
Filingo to show cause why a copy of the November 6, 2019
will should not be submitted for probate. The Citation was
issued and a hearing was scheduled before the Register of
Wills of Lackawanna County. On January 11, 2021,
[Appellant] filed an Objection asserting that the 2019 will was
not an original document and should not be accepted for
probate, and instead the 2017 will should be accepted and
letters testamentary be issued to [Appellant]. On January
14, 2021, the Register of Wills conducted a hearing, and on
January 19, 2021, issued an order, finding that petitioner
could not overcome the presumption that the decedent
destroyed or revoked the November 6, 2019 will, and
admitting the 2017 will to probate and naming [Appellant]
executor.
On March 23, 2021, Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church of St.
Wolodymir of Scranton, PA, a/k/a Vladimir Ukrainian Greek
Catholic Church, ALSAC/St. Jude’s Children’s Research
Hospital[,] and Ronald James Legg, Jr. filed an appeal of the
January 19, 2021 order issued by the Register of Wills. The
appellants asserted that the original of the 2019 will had been
located, and that two witnesses to the 2019 will were now
ready, able and willing to testify that the decedent was of
sound mind when he executed the 2019 will. On April 6,
2021, [Appellant] filed an answer to the appeal. On May 27,
2021, a hearing was conducted.
At the May 27, 2021 hearing, the court heard testimony from
Eugene Doud, the attorney who drafted the 2019 will for the
decedent; Pamela Edwards, branch manager of Peoples
Security Bank in Moscow, PA and the notary public who
notarized the 2019 will; Robin Jenkins, an employee of the
bank who witnessed the 2019 will; Janice Snyder, also an
employee of the bank who witnessed the will; and Ronald
Legg, the executor of the estate under the 2019 will. . . .
-2-
J-S35006-21
Mr. Doud testified that the decedent had directed him to draft
his 2016, 2017, and 2019 wills. The 2019 will revoked all
former wills, and Mr. Doud testified that when the will was
signed on November 6, 2019, the decedent was of sound
mind and knew what he was doing. Mr. Doud testified that
he conducted a colloquy with the decedent before he signed
the will, confirming that he knew that he was revoking all
prior wills, ascertaining that no one was pressuring him to
make these decisions, and confirming that all necessary
changes that he wanted in the will were made. He also asked
him the rationale behind the two significant charitable
bequests to St. Jude’s and St. Vladimir’s in the 2019 will, and
the decedent stated that he had contributed to St. Jude’s over
his lifetime and they provided a great charitable function, and
that he had been a lifetime parishioner of St. Vladimir’s and
they had needs he wanted to help them address. He also
testified that he asked the decedent if he realized that he was
leaving nothing to his children, and the decedent replied that
they had received quite enough from him while he was alive.
Mr. Doud testified that this colloquy was conducted in the
presence of the notary public and witnesses. He testified that
he witnessed them sign the will after the decedent signed it.
He testified that all of his efforts in drafting the 2019 will and
having it executed were done at the direction of the decedent,
and that no one else communicated any instructions.
Pamela Edwards, the branch manager of Peoples Security
Bank in Moscow and a notary public, testified that she had
known the decedent for about 40 years as a longtime
customer of the bank and that she notarized the November
6, 2019 will. She testified that the signature on the will is
definitely the decedent’s and that she is familiar with his
signature from his relationship with the bank. She testified
that she witnessed him sign the will on November 6, 2019,
and that he was of sound mind and knew what he was doing.
She testified that he was not under any undue influence when
he signed, and that nobody influenced him. She also testified
that when he signed the will, he was very adamant that this
was what he wanted to do and that his children had already
received money from him and he did not want them to have
anything from him when he was deceased. Finally, she
testified that the document that she was looking at and
-3-
J-S35006-21
holding in her hand was the original document that she
notarized with the actual ink signatures.
Robin Jenkins testified that on November 6, 2019, she was
an employee of Peoples Security bank and that she knew the
decedent. She testified that she witnessed him sign his will,
and that he was of sound mind. Similarly, Janice Snyder
testified that on November 6, 2019, she was an employee of
Peoples Security Bank, and that she was present when he
signed the will and that he appeared to be of sound mind.
Finally, Ronald Legg testified that the decedent gave the
original of the November 6, 2019 will to him about a week
after it had been executed and asked him to hold it for him.
He testified that he could not locate the original after the
decedent died in December [2020], but then remembered
where he had put it. . . .
At the conclusion of the hearing, [the Orphans’ Court] found
that the 2019 will presented at the hearing was an original
document and that it was the most recent will. The [Orphans’
Court] found that the evidence presented demonstrated that
the decedent intended this to be his last will and testament,
and that he executed it without the exercise of any outside
influence or duress. The [Orphans’ Court] stated that this
was made clear by several of the witnesses, but perhaps none
more clearly than Ms. Edwards who stated that no one spoke
for the decedent. The [Orphans’ Court] issued an order that
sustained the [] appeal from probate, vacated the January
19, 2021 order issued by the Register of Wills, and directed
the Register of Wills to admit to probate the 2019 will and to
grant letters testamentary pursuant to that will.
On June 24, 2021, [Appellant] filed a notice of appeal of the
May 27, 2021 order. On July 21, 2021, [the Orphans’ Court]
ordered [Appellant] to file a concise statement of the [errors]
complained of on appeal within 21 days pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). [Appellant failed to comply with the Orphans’
Court’s order.]
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 8/24/21, at 1-5 (citations and some capitalization
omitted).
-4-
J-S35006-21
Appellant’s brief does not include a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 2116(a) “statement of questions involved” 1 and a review of
Appellant’s brief does not reveal any comprehensible argument or claim of
error. Further, since this Court is unable to discover a rational argument or
claim of error in Appellant’s brief, we must conclude that the procedural and
substantive defects in Appellant’s brief completely preclude meaningful
appellate review. As such, we dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101
(“[b]riefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with
the requirements of [our] 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.”); see also Commonwealth
v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034, 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[a]lthough this Court
is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status
generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se
____________________________________________
1Appellant’s brief also does not contain: a statement of jurisdiction (Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(1)); the order that is the subject of the appeal (Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(2)); a statement of the scope and standard of review (Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(3)); a statement of the case (Pa.R.A.P. 2117); a summary of
argument (Pa.R.A.P. 2118); any citation to the record or legal authority
(Pa.R.A.P. 2119); a table of contents (Pa.R.A.P. 2174); a copy of the trial
court’s opinion (Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b)); or, a copy of Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
statement (Pa.R.A.P. 2111(d)).
-5-
J-S35006-21
litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of the Court”).2
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/30/2021
____________________________________________
2 Further, even if we had not dismissed this appeal, we would have held that
Appellant waived all of her claims, as she failed to comply with the Orphans’
Court’s Rule 1925(b) order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues not
included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement . . . are waived”).
-6-