J-A11026-23
2023 PA Super 221
IN RE: ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SIMPSON, DECEASED : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: DAVID COLECCHIA :
:
:
:
: No. 1042 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered August 16, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Orphans' Court
at No(s): No. 65-20-297
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: October 31, 2023
Appellant, David Colecchia, appeals from the order entered on August
16, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Orphans’
Court Division, requiring him to pay a surcharge in the amount of $3,754.11,
to the Estate of William H. Simpson, deceased. After careful review, we
reverse.
This matter arises from the administration of the Estate of William H.
Simpson, deceased (“Estate”). The underlying action involves the January 9,
2018 last will and testament of the decedent (the “Will”), which was drafted
by Attorney Del P. Nofi, III, Esquire. Orphans’ Court Opinion (“OCO”),
10/25/22, at 1. The Will was probated in the Office of the Register of Wills of
Westmoreland County on February 7, 2020. Id. On March 10, 2020, Nancy
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11026-23
Olga Simpson, decedent’s wife, completed an election to take under the Will
in accordance with Section 2203 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries
(“PEF”) Code, 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-8815.1 The Will did not include Ms. Simpson
as a beneficiary; thus, her election resulted in her receiving no money from
the Estate. Id.
On January 18, 2022, David Colecchia, Esquire (“Appellant”) filed an
“Objection to Account (Fraud)” on behalf of his client, Ms. Simpson. See
Objection to Account, 1/18/22, at 1-10.2, 3, 4 Notably, the Objection to Account
____________________________________________
1 See 20 Pa.C.S. § 2203 (providing the surviving spouse of a resident
decedent the right to an elective share of one-third of the property
enumerated in subsection 2203(a)); 20 Pa.C.S. § 2210 (establishing the
procedure and time limit for a surviving spouse’s exercising of her right to
elect to take or not to take her elective share).
2 See generally Pa.O.C.R. 2.7 (governing objections to accounts).
3 We observe that Appellant’s cover page indicates the type of pleading as
“Objection to Account (Fraud)”; however, the full caption of the pleading reads
“Objection to Account Request to Take Against the Will.” Objection to Account
at 1-2 (capitalization omitted). Despite confusion regarding the nature of this
pleading, as illustrated infra, we refer to this pleading herein as the “Objection
to Account” for consistency purposes.
4 The orphans’ court indicates that the Objection to Account was “not properly
served on the Estate through its Executrix, Lisa Lynn Waeyaert, or its
counsel[,]” nor did it “contain a verification as required by Pennsylvania
Orphans’ Court[] Rule 3.13.” OCO at 2. See also Pa.O.C.R. 2.7(a) (providing
that objections to an account “shall be … served on the accountant or the
accountant’s counsel, if represented”); Pa.O.C.R. 3.13(a) (requiring “[e]very
pleading” to be verified). We note, however, that service of the Objection to
Account or lack thereof is not at issue in this appeal. See OCO at 3 (the
orphans’ court acknowledging that “whether or not Appellant was able to
complete service [of the Objection to Account] is irrelevant,” as the sanctions
assessed against him were “based on other conduct”).
-2-
J-A11026-23
did not contain any assertions of mistake in the first and final account filed by
the Executrix on December 3, 2021.5 Rather, it averred the following, in
relevant part:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5) In this matter, the decedent’s Will does not provide
for his spouse, Nancy Simpson.
6) Ms. Simpson on or about March 10, 2020, completed
an election to take under the Will and therefore receive [sic]
nothing.
7) This election occurred at the office of Attorney Del
Paul Nolfi III, the representative of Ms. Lisa Waeyaert, Executrix,
and the Estate….
8) Ms. Simpson traveled to the office of Attorney [Nolfi]
because of a letter he sent her requesting that she consider taking
under the Will. This letter is attached to the petition for
distribution.
9) At the time of the election, no one [had] informed Ms.
Simpson of the value of the Estate as of that date and no inventory
had been filed or provided to her.
10) At the time of the election, Attorney [Nolfi] allegedly
advised Ms. Simpson that she should take under the Will because
if she elected to take against the Will, it would influence and/or
cause a decrease in her Social Security.
11) This statement of law, if made by Attorney [Nolfi, was]
in error, in that taking against the Will would not affect Ms.
Simpson’s Social Security benefits.
12) This misstatement of law actively harm[ed] Ms.
Simpson, as failing to elect against a will acts as a resource
transfer without consideration, and thus would be a basis for
____________________________________________
5 See Pa.O.C.R. 2.7(c) (providing that “[e]ach objection shall: (1) be specific
as to description and amount; (2) raise one issue of law or fact…; and (3)
briefly set forth the reason or reasons in support thereof”) (paragraph breaks
omitted).
-3-
J-A11026-23
denial of Medicaid benefits. Perna ex rel Bekus v. DPW, 807
A.2d 310, 313 (Pa. Super. 2002)[.]
13) Ms. Simpson justifiably and detrimentally relied on
Attorney [Nolfi’s] legal advice to execute the election to take
under the Will.
14) Also, because of this alleged improper advice, Ms.
Simpson trusted the advice and did not seek independent legal
counsel to investigate whether the decedent’s January 9, 2018
Will was the product of undue influence.
15) By discussing Ms. Simpson’s legal rights with her,
Attorney [Nolfi] created and perpetuated an improper and
irreconcilable conflict of interest between Ms. Simpson and the
Estate.
16) This conflict was further perpetuated by the …
Executrix, Lisa Waeyaert, who paid off the mortgage on Ms.
Simpson’s home by giving her a gift exceeding $40,000.
OBJECTION TO ACCOUNT
REQUEST TO TAKE AGAINST THE WILL
17) The objector re-avers and incorporates herein the
prior paragraphs.
18) Normally, a deceased spouse has one year to elect to
take against the will.
19) Further, in this matter, Ms. Simpson agreed to take
under the Will despite receiving nothing from the Will.
20) However, actual fraud against the spouse can toll this
deadline or provide a basis to nullify the written election. In re
DiMarco’s Estate, [257 A.2d 849 (Pa. 1969)].
21) Such actual fraud can occur due to the breach of a
fiduciary duty to inform. In re Amon’s [E]state, 1 Pa. D. & C.3d
479, 484 ([Montgomery Cty.] 1976).
22) Inducing a spouse to sign an election under a will prior
to the filing of an inventory, and without disclosing the value of
the assets of the estate and the value she would receive under
certain alternatives, is a breach of such a fiduciary duty. In re
Amon’s Estate, supra….
-4-
J-A11026-23
23) An intentional misstatement of the law also can act as
a basis for showing actual fraud. DiMarco’s Estate, supra.
24) The objector, Ms. Simpson, requests this Honorable
Court issue citation [sic] verses [sic] the executor and her
attorney[,] Del Paul Nolfi III, to show cause why[,] … given these
circumstances[,] Ms. Simpson should not be entitled to elect to
take against the Will and take her statutory share.
25) A trial by jury is requested.
WHEREFORE, Objector Nancy Simpson respectfully requests
this Honorable Court issue a citation verses [sic] Executrix Lisa
Waeyaert and Attorney Del Paul Nolfi III[,] to show cause why the
above relief should not be granted and that Ms. Simpson should
be entitled to take her elective share against the Will.
Id. at 3-5 (cleaned up).6
On January 20, 2022, a hearing was scheduled on this matter for June
6, 2022.7 At the hearing, the following appearances were entered: Appellant,
on behalf of Ms. Simpson; Attorney Nolfi, on behalf of the Estate; and Todd
Turin, Esquire, on behalf of the Estate and Attorney Nolfi. N.T. Hearing,
____________________________________________
6 The orphans’ court opined that the Objection to Account “did not contain any
assertions of mistake in the account, but rather alleged malpractice against
Attorney Nolfi in allegedly advising Ms. Simpson to take under the Will.” OCO
at 2.
7 The scheduling order expressly stated that “upon consideration of the
surviving spouse’s petition for citation to exercise her right to elect to
take against her deceased husband’s will, it is hereby ordered, adjudged
and decreed that a hearing on the petition shall be held on the 7th of June,
2022[,]” in the Westmoreland County Courthouse. Scheduling Order, 1/20/22
(single page) (cleaned up; emphasis added). We recognize that the
scheduling order states the hearing will be held on June 7, 2022. However,
we observe that all further reference to the hearing contained in the record,
including the hearing transcript, indicates that the hearing was held on June
6, 2022. See, e.g., OCO at 2; N.T. Hearing, 6/6/22, at 1-2. Our review of
the record has not revealed anything to explain the discrepancy in these dates.
Thus, to avoid further confusion, we assume June 6, 2022 was the hearing
date herein.
-5-
J-A11026-23
6/6/22, at 1. At the beginning of the hearing, in response to the court’s
reference to this matter as “a will contest[,]” Appellant informed the court:
“This is not a will contest. This is a contest concerning the election.” Id. at
5. See also id. (Appellant’s indicating that he has an expert “[f]or legal
malpractice”). Mr. Turin countered, “The manner of pleading in this particular
case was an objection to an account.” Id. at 6. After calling the court’s
attention to Orphans’ Court Rules 2.7 and 3.13, Mr. Turin further averred that
the Objection to Account was not properly verified by Ms. Simpson, that it did
not contain any specific objections to the account, and that perhaps Appellant
intended to petition the court for an extension of time regarding Ms. Simpson’s
election. Id. at 6-7. The following colloquy then took place between the court
and Appellant:
THE COURT: I’ll allow you to respond. If you are outside of
the purview of the objections to accounts and in
fact you aren’t in compliance with Rule 3[.]13,
you cannot move forward today.
[APPELLANT]: I respectfully disagree, Your Honor, because the
objection to the account is an objection as to
fraud. It is very simple.
THE COURT: Show me in the rule where it applies.
[APPELLANT]: Judge, we can object to the account in terms --
THE COURT: No. You have to show me in the rule where it
applies. … When Rule 2.7 applies in regards to
an orphans’ court and fiduciary matter. My
question to [you is] under the objection of the
account, how do you move this action for fraud
and perhaps malpractice forward…?
…
-6-
J-A11026-23
[APPELLANT]: The point of the matter here and the point of
what we’re trying today here is whether Mr.
Nolfi gave my client legal advice. And if he did,
he created an improper conflict of interest and
fraudulently induced her to sign the election to
take under the will. Which is improper. And
that is the basis of our objection….
…
THE COURT: My question to you then is why aren’t you in the
civil court division filing under a malpractice
claim specific to the attorney as opposed to an
objection on the account of an estate inside of
the orphans’ court division?
[APPELLANT]: That’s a fair question. That I agree with. I
debated that. Because I believe that the
orphans’ court is the proper place to adjudicate
that claim. Because at the bottom of this is
whether, in fact, the election to take under the
will was proper….
Id. at 7-10.
After some further debate regarding the format of Appellant’s claim,8
the exchange between Appellant and the court continued:
[APPELLANT]: We stand on our position, Your Honor. We
believe that – if I may, Amon’s Estate and also
Rowe Estate from 1967, these cases – this has
____________________________________________
8 See N.T. Hearing at 12 (Mr. Turin’s suggesting that an objection to account
is not the proper manner in which to bring a cause of action against Attorney
Nolfi); id. at 14-15 (Appellant’s explaining that “[t]his conflict was further
perpetuated by the … Executrix”; averring that the Executrix and Attorney
Nolfi came up with a scheme to pay off Ms. Simpson’s mortgage to get her to
sign the election to take under the will; stating “the whole thing is whether
the election to take under the will is valid and what was done at that time”;
and insisting “I think this position can be addressed in an estate”); id. at 14-
15 (the court’s opining “if [Attorney Nolfi], in fact, committed criminal acts of
conspiracy with those in the administrative capacity to defraud a beneficiary,
that is a malpractice case”; “It’s not an orphans’ court case. And you’re in the
wrong venue. You’re in the wrong division of the court….”).
-7-
J-A11026-23
long been black letter law that we can challenge
the election to take under the will in an orphans’
court proceeding.
THE COURT: But a challenge to the election under a will is
separate and apart to an objection of the
account. That’s a totally different action with a
totally different standard, and in use of your
precedent law, the election challenge is
appropriate with those cases but not on an
objection to an account. Counsel.
…
[APPELLANT]: … What we intend to proceed upon is the issue
of whether, in fact, [Ms.] Simpson’s election to
take under the will was the product of fraud or
undue influence.
THE COURT: That’s a totally different case than you pled. If
that’s the action you want…, you need to
withdraw this objection of the account and file
with regard to the election under the will.
Because that’s then the proceeding that they,
under fairness, have a right as the respondents
to prepare to defend relative to your action.
[APPELLANT]: Your Honor, it is our intention here to attack the
election under the will. Because that’s the issue
in this estate. And whether in fact –
THE COURT: Well, that’s not what’s before the [c]ourt today.
[APPELLANT]: I guess where you’re coming from –
THE COURT: Look, I have your pleading right here. It says
objection to account, request to take against the
will.
[APPELLANT]: Which is both – which is what we’re trying to
say. She had the right to – and if we need to
amend the pleadings, we can, to make it clear[.]
Id. at 16-19.
The court reminded Appellant that under Rule 2.7, a specific objection
to the account must be pled. See id. at 22-23 (“You have to have something
-8-
J-A11026-23
averred in your pleadings that are specific under the rule that are specific as
to amounts, that are specific as to property, that are specific as to who is to
be a receiver of that, and then a verification attached under Rule 3[.]13 by
that moving party or beneficiary. You have neither of those.”). Appellant
inquired as to how an issue regarding an improper election should be raised.
Id. at 26. The court clarified, “[t]hat’s a separate pleading all together that
is provided for under the fiduciary code[,]” and it again suggested to Appellant
that he “withdraw the objection to account.” Id. The following exchange then
occurred:
[APPELLANT]: Without prejudice.
THE COURT: Well, you can request that. I’m sure it would be
opposed, and I’ll hear that from the other side I
anticipate. And I’ll make a ruling one way or the
other on the objection to account, which is what
is before the [c]ourt today.
[APPELLANT]: See, Judge, I’m not sure that that’s exactly
what’s in front of the [c]ourt.
THE COURT: You have to be cognizant of timelines, time
limitations, to determine whether or not you are
even … permitted to move forward by way of
both the fiduciary code, the statutory set-up and
the precedent law.
[APPELLANT]: But the precedent law, I believe allows me to
make the --
THE COURT: Well, the precedent law that you’ve included
here applies to the election format under 20
Pa.C.S.[ §] 2210. It does not apply to Rule 2.7,
which is the objection to account.
[APPELLANT]: But, Judge, here becomes the question. Maybe
this got off track, because it’s very clear what
we’re trying to plead here. Now --
-9-
J-A11026-23
THE COURT: It’s not clear within the rule….
[APPELLANT]: Your … point here is that we haven’t pled
something under Rule 2.7 –
THE COURT: No, under statutory code 2210.
[APPELLANT]: Under 2210, we have. Because we’ve pled
fraud. Under 2210, we clearly have pled – and
that’s what we’re trying to plead under 2210, an
improper election and fraud in the election.
THE COURT: Sir, you have not done that. The respondents
are not prepared to litigate and/or defend
because that’s a totally different procedural
avenue relative to this area of law.
[APPELLANT]: But the problem is, Judge, we had asked for a
Rule to Show Cause and an answer with this.
We didn’t get an answer.
Id. at 27-29.9
After a short break to provide counsel with the opportunity to meet with
their clients, Appellant agreed — at the court’s urging — to withdraw the
Objection to Claim. Id. at 38. The orphans’ court accepted the withdrawal
as a withdrawal with prejudice and informed the Estate that it was “permitted
to confirm the account and proceed to a decree.” Id. at 39. See also Decree,
____________________________________________
9 Mr. Turin informed the court that Attorney Nolfi was only served with the
scheduling order, not the Objection to Account, and that Attorney Nolfi took it
upon himself to obtain a copy of the Objection to Account from the Register
of Wills. N.T. Hearing at 29. Additionally, we note that the Scheduling Order
declared that the orphans’ court “shall issue a citation” on the Executrix and
her counsel and that the petitioner “shall serve a copy of his petition, this
order, and this court’s citation pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.[] § 765[,]” Scheduling
Order (single page) (cleaned up), yet there is nothing in the record to indicate
that the court ever issued such a citation. Nevertheless, Attorney Nolfi filed
an Answer to Objection to Account, on behalf of Ms. Waeyaert, on May 19,
2022.
- 10 -
J-A11026-23
6/6/22 (single page) (confirming the account for the Estate); Order, 6/8/22
(single page) (declaring that the Objection to Account is withdrawn with
prejudice and that the account for the Estate is confirmed).10
Appellant filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the court’s June 8,
2022 decision, seeking to rescind the withdrawal of the Objection to Account.
Appellant argued, inter alia, that the Objection to Claim was, “in substance,”
a request “to withdraw [Ms. Simpson’s] election to take under the will and to
thereafter elect to take against her deceased husband’s estate.” Motion for
Reconsideration, 6/17/22, at ¶ 4.11 He asserted that, based on the court’s
position and continued suggestion, he “sought to withdraw the petition
without prejudice[,]” on behalf of Ms. Simpson. Id. at ¶ 8 (emphasis
added). However, “the [c]ourt took this withdrawal request as with
prejudice and thereafter confirmed the account….” Id. at ¶ 9 (emphasis
added).
In support of his request for reconsideration, Appellant argued that the
orphans’ court’s analysis that precipitated Ms. Simpson’s withdrawal of the
Objection to Account was based on several legal errors. Id. at ¶ 11. For
instance, Appellant asserted that the orphans’ court “had the ability to take
____________________________________________
10The order of court is dated June 6, 2022, but it was not filed with the
Westmoreland County Register of Wills and docketed until June 8, 2022.
11 See also Motion for Reconsideration at ¶¶ 6-7 (Appellant’s averring that,
at the June 6, 2022 hearing, the Estate argued the Objection to Account was
mis-titled and was not in fact an objection against the account; Appellant
agreed that the pleading “was mis-titled, but insisted the objection was proper
as a request to withdraw [Ms. Simpson’s] consent to take under the will”).
- 11 -
J-A11026-23
the [Objection to Account] as a petition to rescind the election as necessary
to achieve justice.” Id. at ¶ 18 (citing Pa.O.C.R. 1.2(a) (stating that the
Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure “shall be liberally construed
to secure the just, timely and efficient determination of every action or
proceeding to which they are applicable” and that the court “at every stage of
any action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure that
does not affect the substantive rights of the parties in interest”)).12 The
orphans’ court denied Appellant’s motion with prejudice.13
On June 8, 2022, Mr. Turin filed a petition for surcharge on behalf of the
Estate and its Executrix, Ms. Waeyaert, seeking the recovery of attorneys’
fees, costs, and executor’s costs from Appellant in connection with the defense
of the Objection to Account. Mr. Turin averred that the Objection to Account
was “not appropriate for the relief requested” and was “clearly precluded by
… Rule[s] 2.7 and … 3.13[.]” Petition for Surcharge, 6/8/22, at ¶ 3. Thus, he
requested that the court surcharge Appellant in the amount of $2,357.50 for
additional legal services rendered by Attorney Nolfi; $2,790.00 for legal
services rendered and costs advanced by Mr. Turin; and $1,185.11 for
____________________________________________
12 We need not reiterate the other legal errors alleged by Appellant for the
purposes of this appeal.
13 See Order, 6/17/22 (single page) (“Counsel on the record repeatedly
accepted and asked for a withdraw [sic] with prejudice to correct the action
to civil court. Due to his own action and the very detailed record of his
withdraw [sic], this motion for reconsideration is denied with prejudice.”)
(cleaned up).
- 12 -
J-A11026-23
expenses and costs incurred by Ms. Waeyaert, as Executrix of the Estate. Id.
at 3 (unnumbered).
Appellant filed a timely Response, in which he reiterated his claim that
the Objection to Account “was[,] in substance[,] a petition to rescind the
election that Ms. Simpson made to take under the Will[,] given fraud by
Attorney Nolfi and the Executrix of the Will. The court had the ability to take
the [Objection to Claim] as a petition to rescind the election as necessary to
achieve justice.” Response to Petition for Surcharge, 6/10/22, at ¶ 3.
Moreover, he denied that the fees and expenses incurred by the Estate in
connection with the Objection to Claim were due to bad faith conduct on the
part of Ms. Simpson or Appellant. Rather, Appellant maintains that Ms.
Simpson has a viable claim against the Estate due to the actions of Attorney
Nolfi and the Executrix. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 7-8.
On August 15, 2022, the orphans’ court issued an order granting the
Estate’s request for a surcharge and directing Appellant to pay fees and costs
totaling $3,754.11.14 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on September
6, 2022. The orphans’ court subsequently directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of an appeal. Appellant
timely complied, listing the following errors:
____________________________________________
14 Specifically, the surcharge amount consists of $881.50 in fees to be paid to
Attorney Nolfi; costs in the amount of $82.61 to be paid to Ms. Waeyaert; and
attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $2,790.00 to be paid to Mr. Turin. Order,
8/15/22, at 1-2. The court expressly stated that the surcharge is to be paid
by Appellant — not Ms. Simpson.
- 13 -
J-A11026-23
1. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter giving rise to
sanctions because the Register of Wills and the [orphans’] court
never issued a citation against parties to be served, and the
issuance of the citation is a prerequisite to the court having
jurisdiction.
2. Even if the court had jurisdiction, … Appellant could not
complete service as ordered because the citation was part of
the package of documents to be served.
3. [] Appellant’s conduct concerning the petition otherwise was
not an appropriate basis for sanctions.
4. The court failed to provide sufficient due process of law to …
Appellant and failed to hold a hearing on the matter to obtain
additional evidence concerning sanctions and appropriate fees.
5. The sanctions awarded are unreasonable and excessive given
the circumstances.
6. [] Appellant reserves the right to add additional matters to this
statement as the record is assembled.
Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement, 10/3/22, at 1 (unnecessary
capitalization omitted).
In response, the orphans’ court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on October
25, 2022. Appellant now presents the following issues for our review:
1. Did the [Estate] waive its objections to the conduct used as the
basis for sanctions by not raising them in a new matter when
the Estate filed an answer to [Appellant’s] Objection[ to
Account]?
2. Was filing the Objection to Account itself vexatious conduct
deserving of sanctions?
3. Assuming, arguendo, [Appellant] committed sanctionable
conduct, did the orphans[’] court inappropriate [sic] award
sanctions without a hearing?
Appellant’s Brief at 7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
- 14 -
J-A11026-23
Preliminarily, we observe that Appellant’s first issue (regarding the
Estate’s purported waiver of its objections to Appellant’s allegedly
sanctionable conduct) was not included in his Rule 1925(b) concise statement
and, therefore, we are constrained to deem this issue waived. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”);
Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc.,
88 A.3d 222, 225 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“[I]n determining whether an appellant
has waived his issues on appeal based on non-compliance with Pa.R.A.P.
1925, it is the trial court’s order that triggers an appellant’s obligation[.
T]herefore, we look first to the language of that order.”) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted); Orphans’ Court Order, 9/13/22 (single page)
(warning Appellant that, “per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iv), any issue not properly
included in the Statement timely filed and served pursuant to subdivision (b)
shall be deemed waived”).
We address the merits of Appellant’s remaining claims, mindful of the
following:
By statute, the trial court has the authority to order a party to pay
the opposing side’s attorneys’ fees when the party’s conduct has
been, inter alia, vexatious or obdurate or in bad faith. See 42
Pa.C.S.[] § 2503(7) & (9); Kulp v. Hrivnak, 765 A.2d 796, 799
(Pa. Super. 2000); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Allen, … 544 A.2d 491, 494 ([Pa. Super.] 1988). A party
has acted in bad faith when he files a lawsuit for purposes of fraud,
dishonesty or corruption. Berg v. Georgetown Builders, Inc.,
822 A.2d 810, 816 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citing Thunberg v.
Strause, … 682 A.2d 295, 299-300 ([Pa.] 1996)). A party’s
- 15 -
J-A11026-23
conduct has been vexatious if he brought or continued a lawsuit
without legal or factual grounds and if the suit served only to
cause annoyance. Miller v. Nelson, 768 A.2d 858, 862 (Pa.
Super. [2001]) … (citing Thunberg, supra at … 299). Obdurate
is defined, inter alia, as “unyielding; stubborn.” Funk and
Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary of the
English Language, Publishers International Press, Newark, N.J.,
1982.
…
The trial court has great latitude and discretion with respect to an
award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to a statute. Cummins v.
Atlas R.R. Construction Co., 814 A.2d 742, 746 (Pa. Super.
2002). In reviewing a trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees, our
standard is abuse of discretion. Lucchino v. Commonwealth,
… 809 A.2d 264, 269-70 ([Pa.] 2002); Miller…, [768 A.2d at]
861…. If there is support in the record for the trial court’s findings
of fact that the conduct of the party was obdurate, vexatious or in
bad faith, we will not disturb the trial court’s decision. Lucchino,
supra … [(citation omitted]); Berg, supra…; Miller, supra…;
Allen, supra….
Scalia v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 878 A.2d 114, 116-17 (Pa. Super. 2005). “[I]t
is the burden of the party seeking counsel fees to prove the existence of one
of the statutory conditions.” Berg, 822 A.2d at 816 (citations omitted).
Moreover, we note that it is not the intent of Section 2503 to punish all those
who initiate actions which ultimately fail, as such a course of action would
have a chilling effect upon the right to raise a claim. Dooley v. Rubin, 618
A.2d 1014, 1018 (Pa. Super. 1993) (citation omitted). “Rather, the aim of
the rule [permitting the recovery of counsel fees] is to sanction those who
knowingly raise, in bad faith, frivolous claims which have no reasonable
possibility of success, for the purpose of harassing, obstructing or delaying
the opposing party.” Id.
- 16 -
J-A11026-23
Instantly, in support of its award of a surcharge, the orphans’ court
opined that the Objection to Account was “improvidently filed.” OCO at 3.
The court explained:
It is clear that the objections made no assertions of error in the
accounting, and the cause of action should have been either
presented as a petition to take against the will under 20 Pa.C.S. §
2210[,] or a civil legal malpractice action. Whether or not the
objections were served properly, they were still improper and
caused an undue expense to the Estate which was remedied by
the assessment of sanctions for fees and costs.
Id. (cleaned up). The court found Appellant’s conduct to be “vexatious” on
the grounds that the Objection to Account was filed “without an appropriate
legal or factual basis[,]” and thus, it determined that such conduct was
sanctionable under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7) and (9). Id. at 4. See also id. (“It
is clear that there was no basis in law or fact to cause [Appellant] to bring his
cause of action in the format of [an] objection to the account.”).
Appellant claims that the orphans’ court erred in finding his filing of the
Objection to Account was “vexatious[,]” on the grounds that his Objection to
Account was “improvidently filed” and lacking “any basis in law or fact.”
Appellant’s Brief at 10. Appellant contends, to the contrary, that the
underlying basis for the filing did have merit, but that he mistakenly presented
his argument in the wrong format and/or in the wrong forum. Id. See also
id. at 17 (noting that the orphans’ court never stated Ms. Simpson’s
underlying claims were meritless or that she could not recover; instead, the
court focused on “how the underlying issue was placed in the wrong format
and the wrong forum”) (citation to record omitted). After an extended
- 17 -
J-A11026-23
discussion with the court at the June 6, 2022 hearing, Appellant points out
that he “agreed to withdraw the Objection [to Account] and seek relief for the
underlying injury another way.” Id. at 17.15 See also id. (emphasizing that
the Estate’s arguments concerning the appropriateness of the Objection to
Account were raised for the first time at the hearing and that he withdrew the
Objection to Claim at that same hearing “instead of seeking to pursue the …
action … in the face of [the Estate’s] and the [c]ourt’s objections”). Appellant
concludes that the record does not support a finding that his filing of the
Objection to Account was vexatious and, therefore, the orphans’ court award
of attorneys’ fees as a sanction against Appellant is inappropriate. Id. at 18.
We agree with Appellant.
Pursuant to Section 2503 of the Pennsylvania Judicial Code, counsel fees
may be awarded to a participant “as a sanction against another participant for
dilatory, obdurate or vexatious conduct during the pendency of a matter[,]”
42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7), or “because the conduct of another party in
commencing the matter or otherwise was arbitrary, vexatious or in bad faith.”
42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(9). Any award of counsel fees under these statutory
provisions, however, must be supported by a trial court’s specific finding of
such conduct. See Kulp, 765 A.2d at 799. While disposition of claims under
Sections 2503(7) and (9) generally requires an evidentiary hearing, no
____________________________________________
15 Two days later, Appellant reframed the matter as a legal malpractice action
and filed it against Attorney Nolfi in the Westmoreland County Civil Division at
docket no. 1932 of 2022. OCO at 4.
- 18 -
J-A11026-23
hearing is necessary where the facts are undisputed. In re Estate of Burger,
852 A.2d 385, 391 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citing Kulp, 765 A.2d at 800). In the
case sub judice, the orphans’ court only made a finding of vexatious conduct;
thus, we take a closer look at the meaning of “vexatious” in the context of
sanctions awarded under Section 2503. See OCO at 4.16
It is well-established that a party’s conduct is considered “vexatious” if
it is done “without sufficient grounds in either law or in fact and … [with] the
sole purpose of causing annoyance.” Thunberg, 682 A.2d at 299 (citation
omitted; emphasis added). See also Moyer v. Leone, 260 A.3d 245, 255
(Pa. Super. 2021) (emphasizing that a party’s conduct can be deemed
vexatious if it is done “without sufficient grounds in either law or in fact and
… [with] the sole purpose of causing annoyance”) (emphasis in original;
citation omitted). This Court has upheld findings of vexatious conduct based
on a continuing pattern which demonstrated that the litigation had no purpose
but annoyance and where the party was clearly aware that his pleading lacked
any legal basis and yet pursued his claim regardless. See Scalia, 878 A.2d
at 116 (“[T]his Court upheld an award of attorneys’ fees against a party after
she, as an adopted individual, pursued a suit to inherit from her natural
father’s estate, knowing that the law prohibits adopted children from
recovering from the estates of their natural parents.” (citing In re Estate of
____________________________________________
16 The orphans’ court opined that a hearing on the issue of sanctions was not
necessary, as “[t]he sanctionable conduct is visible on the face of the record,
both through the pleadings and upon a review of the transcript of the June 6,
2022 proceeding.” OCO at 5.
- 19 -
J-A11026-23
Liscio, 638 A.2d 1019, 1021-22 (Pa. Super. 1994))); Miller, 768 A.2d at 861-
62 (affirming an award of attorneys’ fees where the plaintiff was advised
repeatedly that his lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of immunity and that
his suit had no legal basis or possible chance of success but engaged in a
“relentless legal crusade” in pursuit of his claims); Henry v. Henry, 249 A.3d
1139 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum) (affirming the trial
court’s award of counsel fees based on its finding that the father’s conduct
was vexatious where the father was aware that the allegations in his contempt
petition were moot or lacking in legal basis and, nevertheless, he proceeded
to court on the contempt petition for the sole purpose to cause annoyance).17
In contrast, we have determined that sanctions were not warranted
where the plaintiff’s claims were not wholly without merit, where the plaintiff
reasonably believed that he had a valid claim, and absent evidence that the
plaintiff acted in bad faith. See, e.g., Finder v. Crawford, 167 A.3d 40, 46
(Pa. Super. 2017) (upholding the trial court’s decision declining the award of
attorneys’ fees under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7), where it had determined that the
plaintiff’s claims were “not without any basis in law or fact so as to exclude
the possibility he was proceeding in good faith”); In re Barnes Foundation,
74 A.3d 129, 136 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reversing the trial court’s imposition of
sanctions, reasoning that the appellants’ petition to reopen a proceeding was
____________________________________________
17 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unpublished non-precedential decisions of the
Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive
value).
- 20 -
J-A11026-23
“not wholly without legal or factual grounds[,]” even where the appellant
“raise[d] some arguments previously determined by the court to be without
merit, and his arguments at times verge[d] on scattered and disjunctive”);
Equibank v. Miller, 619 A.2d 336, 338 (Pa. Super. 1993) (determining that
the makers of a note were not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees for the
allegedly arbitrary and vexatious conduct of the holder of the note in
repeatedly making mistakes by filing complaints and confessions of judgment
on the wrong note; even though the holder retarded the disposition of the
matter, these actions were not sufficiently sinister to support an award of
attorneys’ fees); Santillo v. Robinson, 557 A.2d 416, 417 (Pa. Super. 1989)
(affirming the trial court’s denial of a claim for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42
Pa.C.S. § 2503(9), where the plaintiffs dropped the defendant from the lawsuit
after discovery and there was no evidence that the plaintiffs acted in an
arbitrary or vexatious manner or in bad faith in commencing the suit; opining
that while the plaintiffs’ claim “may not have been a strong one …, the record
[did] not indicate that the plaintiffs did not reasonably believe that their claim
was valid under existing or developing law”).
The issue currently before us is whether the record supports the
orphans’ court’s finding Appellant’s filing of the Objection to Claim to be
vexatious. For further guidance on this matter, Appellant points us to
Dreibelbis v. State College Borough Water Authority, 654 A.2d 52 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1994), an analogous case in which the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania reversed the trial court’s order granting fees and costs under
- 21 -
J-A11026-23
Section 2503.18 Appellant’s Brief at 18. In Dreibelbis, Mr. Dreibelbis sought
an injunction against the Water Authority to prevent it from imposing a
municipal lien on his property for connection fees that he had refused to pay;
however, the action was dismissed several months later. Dreibelbis, 654
A.2d at 54. Subsequently, the Water Authority moved for the recovery of
counsel fees and costs incurred in connection with its defense of the injunction
action, pursuant to Section 2503 of the Judicial Code, arguing that Mr.
Dreibelbis had “stubbornly persisted in pursuing his injunction action even
though, as stated in [its] answer to the injunction complaint, his remedy was
at law.” Id. The trial court granted the Water Authority’s motion, finding Mr.
Dreibelbis’s filing of the injunction action to be “unreasonable” and
“vexatious[.]” Id. On appeal, Mr. Dreibelbis argued that his dismissed
injunction action was not “arbitrary,” “vexatious,” or “in bad faith” under
Section 2503. Id. He explained that he did not want a lien clouding his title,
that he wished to get the issue resolved, and that his original filing of the
action in equity rather than at law was an “honest … mistake.” Id.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the trial court
erred in granting the Water Authority’s motion and opined:
We perceive no basis for a finding or conclusion that the injunction
action was vexatious or commenced in bad faith. Nor do we agree
that [Mr.] Dreibelbis “stubbornly persisted in pursuing” his
injunction petition simply because the [Water] Authority answered
____________________________________________
18 Although Commonwealth Court decisions are not binding on this Court, we
note that they may be considered as persuasive authority. Commonwealth
v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392, 395 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2014).
- 22 -
J-A11026-23
his injunction complaint with an assertion that a legal remedy
existed. … [Mr.] Dreibelbis’[s] counsel originally proceeded in
error in the manner he prosecuted the issue of liability for
connection fees; shortly after the [Water] Authority’s answer was
filed, the trial court dismissed the equity action. We do not think
this is a situation to which [S]ection 2503 was meant to apply.
Even if [Mr.] Dreibelbis incorrectly brought an injunction
petition, he was nevertheless seeking to challenge the
connection fees, which the [Water] Authority itself stated
he had a right to do under 53 P.S. § 7182[,] and which, on
the facts of this case, was not a challenge without
foundation.
Id. at 54-55 (emphasis added). The Court concluded that “the assessment
of fees and costs was not warranted under [S]ection 2503[,]” and it reversed
that part of the trial court’s order granting counsel fees and costs. Id. at 55.
We regard the Dreibelbis Court’s reasoning as particularly constructive
in our analysis of the case sub judice. We believe that the record in the instant
matter similarly establishes that Appellant mistakenly entitled his pleading as
an Objection to Account, but that he intended to revoke Ms. Simpson’s election
and to exercise her right to elect to take against the decedent’s Will,19 which
she had a right to do under the Judicial Code. See 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 2203, 2210.
See also Pa.O.C.R. 5.4 (governing revocation of a surviving spouse’s
____________________________________________
19 See, e.g., OCO at 2 (acknowledging that the Objection to Account was void
of any assertions of mistake in the account); Objection to Account at 5
(seeking a rule to show cause why Ms. Simpson should not be entitled to elect
to take against the Will); N.T. Hearing at 18 (Appellant’s indicating his
intention to proceed on “the issue of whether … [Ms.] Simpson’s election to
take under the will was the product of fraud”); id. at 19 (Appellant’s stating
“it is our intention here to attack the election under the will”); id. at 28
(Appellant’s explaining to the court that “we’re trying to plead under [Section]
2210, an improper election and fraud in the election”).
- 23 -
J-A11026-23
election).20 We recognize that the time limit for filing an election has expired
here. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 2210(b) (requiring the filing of a surviving spouse’s
election “before the expiration of six months after the decedent’s death or
before the expiration of six months after the date of probate, whichever is
later”). However, a finding of actual fraud relieves the surviving spouse from
this mandatory time requirement. In re DiMarco’s Estate, 257 A.2d 849,
852 (Pa. 1969).21 Thus, given Appellant’s allegations of fraud against Attorney
Nolfi and Ms. Waeyaert, the relief sought by Appellant was not lacking in
foundation. Should Appellant be successful in proving actual fraud, an election
to take against the Will could be deemed timely, depending on the timing of
when the fraud occurred. See id. at 852-53 (stating that to warrant a finding
of actual fraud, a surviving spouse seeking relief from the mandatory time
requirement must present “clear, precise and convincing” evidence of “an
intent to deceive on the part of the person or persons who misrepresented or
misstated either a fact or the law”).
Additionally, we emphasize that Appellant — like Mr. Dreibelbis — did
not insist on pursuing his claim in the face of the Estate’s objections and the
orphans’ court’s position regarding the format in which he was seeking relief
____________________________________________
20 The orphans’ court also admitted Ms. Simpson’s right to elect to take against
the Will. See OCO at 3 (stating that Appellant’s cause of action “should have
been either presented as a petition to take against the will under 20 Pa.C.S.
§ 2210 or a civil legal malpractice action”).
21We note that the DiMarco Court interpreted former 20 P.S. §§ 180.11,
180.12 (now 20 Pa.C.S. § 2210).
- 24 -
J-A11026-23
on behalf of Ms. Simpson. Rather, he agreed to withdraw his Objection to
Account at the initial hearing on the matter and then, heeding the court’s
recommendation, proceeded with the filing of a civil malpractice lawsuit
against Attorney Nolfi. See Order, 6/8/22 (indicating that the Objection to
Account is withdrawn with prejudice).
Finally, we observe that the orphans’ court’s handling of the Objection
to Account may have contributed to the confusion over the format and
substance of Appellant’s filing, as its initial scheduling order expressly referred
to the pleading, not as an objection to account, but as a “[p]etition for
[c]itation to exercise [Ms. Simpson’s] right to elect to take against her
deceased husband’s will[.]” Scheduling Order (single page). As such, it may
have appeared to the parties that the orphans’ court was exercising its
discretion to elevate substance over form. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 126;22 Pomerantz
v. Goldstein, 387 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa. 1978) (explaining that Rule 126
“permits us to disregard procedural errors which do not affect substantial
rights”); Deek Investment, L.P. v. Murray, 157 A.3d 491, 494 (Pa. Super.
____________________________________________
22 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 126 provides:
The rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to
which they are applicable. The court at every stage of any such
action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of
procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the
parties.
Pa.R.Civ.P. 126. Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rule 1.2 similarly allows the
court to “disregard any error or defect of procedure that does not affect the
substantive rights of the parties in interest.” Pa.O.C.R. 1.2(a).
- 25 -
J-A11026-23
2017) (“Rule 126 does not excuse a party’s complete noncompliance with the
rules, but Rule 126 is available to a party who makes a substantial attempt to
conform.”) (citation omitted). See also Pomerantz, 387 A.2d at 1281
(vacating the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s “exceptions” where the
appellant had substantively complied with Pa.R.Civ.P. 1038(d) (governing the
filing of exceptions to a court’s decision in a nonjury trial and disallowing the
filing of a motion for new trial), but mistakenly captioned his exceptions as a
“motion for new trial”).23
Nevertheless, at the hearing, the orphans’ court strictly enforced the
form of the pleading over its substance.24 See N.T. at 7-10, 16-19, 22-23,
27-29 (the orphans’ court’s directing Appellant to demonstrate how his filing
complies with Rule 2.7, governing objections to accounts; insisting that the
issue regarding whether Ms. Simpson’s election to take under the Will was the
____________________________________________
23 The Pomerantz Court explained:
Had the pleading been properly titled, it would have been disposed
of on the merits, rather than upon the erroneous caption. It has
been our policy to overlook such procedural errors when a party
has substantially complied with the requirements of the rule and
no prejudice would result. “Procedural rules are not ends in
themselves, but means whereby justice, as expressed in legal
principles, is administered. They are not to be exalted to the
status of substantive objectives.”
Pomerantz, 387 A.2d 1281 (quoting McKay v. Beatty, 35 A.2d 264, 265
(Pa. 1944)).
24 We acknowledge that Rule 126 is discretionary. See Anderson v.
Centennial Homes, Inc., 594 A.2d 737, 739 (Pa. Super. 1991) (“[W]hile the
trial court may ignore procedural noncompliance, it is not required to do so.”)
(citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 126).
- 26 -
J-A11026-23
product of fraud and her request to exercise her right to elect to take against
the Will are not before the court; and instructing Appellant to “withdraw this
objection of the account and file with regard to the election under the will”).
But see Objection to Account at 5 (requesting that the orphans’ court “issue
a citation” to the Executrix and Attorney Nolfi and require them “to show cause
why[,] … given these circumstances[,] Ms. Simpson should not be entitled to
elect to take against the will and take her statutory share”).25
After careful review of the record and relevant law, we do not believe
that the Objection to Account was wholly without any basis in law or in fact,
nor do we discern any indication that Appellant filed the Objection to Account
for the sole purpose of causing annoyance. See Thunberg, supra. Appellant
did not exhibit a continuing pattern of conduct demonstrating bad faith, nor
did he relentlessly pursue his claim knowing he had no possible chance of
success. See Henry, supra; Miller, supra. Rather, Appellant has
demonstrated that he was seeking to rectify the alleged improper election on
behalf of Ms. Simpson, but proceeded in an improper manner. We do not
believe that Section 2503 sanctions were intended to punish a party such as
Appellant, who reasonably believed he had a viable claim but made a
procedural error in attempting to pursue that claim — especially where
Appellant withdrew the pleading upon learning of his error. See Dooley, 618
____________________________________________
25 Nothing herein shall be construed as a determination by this Court as to
whether Appellant substantially complied with the applicable rules or whether
any prejudice would result from the overlooking of any alleged procedural
errors.
- 27 -
J-A11026-23
A.2d at 1018 (stating that “the aim of the rule [permitting the recovery of
counsel fees] is to sanction those who knowingly raise, in bad faith, frivolous
claims which have no reasonable possibility of success, for the purpose of
harassing, obstructing or delaying the opposing party”).
Based on the foregoing, we do not believe the record supports the
orphans’ court’s finding that Appellant’s filing of the Objection to Account was
“vexatious” and, thus, we conclude the award of sanctions under Section 2503
was unwarranted. Accordingly, we reverse the orphans’ court’s August 15,
2022 order granting the Estate’s petition for surcharge.26
Order reversed.
DATE: 10/31/2023
____________________________________________
26Due to our disposition in this matter, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant’s third issue concerning the reasonableness of the amount of
sanctions awarded.
- 28 -