J-S05026-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: TODD (HYUNG-RAE) TARSELLI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
.
No. 930 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 4990
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and PLATT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED FEBRUARY 17, 2017
Appellant, Todd (Hyung-Rae) Tarselli, appeals from the order entered
in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denying the petition to amend
his birth certificate. Appellant contends that the court erred by finding that
Appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of an incorrect date
of birth. We conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to
Appellant’s failure to join an indispensable party. We affirm.
On October 7, 2015, Appellant filed a petition with the Luzerne County
Orphans’ Court to amend his birth certificate. Through his petition, Appellant
averred that the date of birth listed on his birth certificate is incorrect and
sought to change his birth year from 1973 to 1974. Appellant claimed that
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to Superior Court.
J-S05026-17
he was born in Korea and taken to an orphanage at a young age and,
therefore, does not have any original documentation of his birth. An
American couple subsequently adopted Appellant, and the date of birth
assigned to him as a “foundling” on his Korean birth certificate was
transferred to his American birth certificate. However, Appellant claims that
cultural differences between the Korean calculation of age and American
calculation of age led to an inaccurate recordation of his actual birth year.
Following a hearing on April 12, 2016, the orphans’ court denied
Appellant’s petition, citing Appellant’s failure to provide clear and convincing
evidence that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded, or conversely clear
and convincing evidence of his correct date of birth. Appellant timely
appealed.
On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his
petition because, contrary to the orphans’ court’s assertion, he did provide
clear and convincing evidence that the date of birth listed on his birth
certificate was incorrect. However, before we consider the merits of
Appellant’s substantive argument, we must first analyze whether the
orphans’ court had jurisdiction to entertain Appellant’s petition. Cf.
Commonwealth v. Demora, 149 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2016).
We may raise the question of jurisdiction sua sponte. See Roman v.
McGuire Mem’l, 127 A.3d 26, 31 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 134
A.3d 57 (Pa. 2016). “Under Pennsylvania law, the failure to join an
-2-
J-S05026-17
indispensable party implicates the trial court’s subject jurisdiction.” Orman
v. Mortgage I.T., 118 A.3d 403, 406 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
An indispensable party is one whose “rights are so connected with the
claims of the litigants that no decree can be made without impairing those
rights.” Sprauge v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184, 189 (Pa. 1988) (citations
omitted). Failing to join an indispensable party “renders any order or decree
of court null and void for want of jurisdiction.” CRY, Inc. v. Mill Service,
Inc., 640 A.2d 372, 375 (Pa. 1994) (citations omitted). See also 3
Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 14:158. In evaluating whether a party
is “indispensable,” the following factors must be considered:
1. Do absent parties have a right or an interest related to the
claim?
2. If so, what is the nature of that right or interest?
3. Is that right or interest essential to the merits of this issue?
4. Can justice be afforded without violating the due process
rights of absent parties?
Martin v. Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc., 80 A. 3d 813, 814 (Pa. Super.
2013) (citation omitted).
Here, Appellant failed to join the Pennsylvania State Department of
Health as a party to his petition to amend his birth certificate. The
Pennsylvania State Department of Health is statutorily mandated to install,
maintain, and act as custodian for the statewide system of vital statistics
files and records. See 35 P.S. § 450.201. As part of their responsibility to
maintain vital statistics, the Pennsylvania State Department of Health
completes and registers birth certificates for all children born in Pennsylvania
-3-
J-S05026-17
or born in another country when one parent is a citizen of the United States
and a resident of Pennsylvania. See 35 P.S. §§ 450.401 -450.403.
Clearly, any action by an orphans’ court to alter or amend a citizen of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s birth certificate would greatly affect
the interest of the Pennsylvania State Department of Health. Additionally,
because the Pennsylvania State Department of Health does not appear to
have even been notified of these proceedings, they were unable to present
any opinion on the manner in which the orphans’ court should view
Appellant’s request.
Thus, we conclude that all four factors weigh in favor of considering
the Pennsylvania State Department of Health an indispensable party to
Appellant’s petition. Appellant’s failure to join the Pennsylvania State
Department of Health resulted in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is,
therefore, fatal to his petition. We affirm on this basis. See Commonwealth
v. Burns, 988 A.2d 684, 690 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2009) (“[A]n appellate court
may affirm the lower court on any basis, even one not considered or
presented in the court below.”)
Order affirmed.
-4-
J-S05026-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/17/2017
-5-