J-A04044-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ESTATE OF GENEVIEVE THOMPSON / AN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
INCAPACITATED PERSON PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: NANCY THOMPSON
No. 755 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree January 19, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Orphans’ Court at No.: 1858IC of 2006 Control No. 15532
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED MARCH 29, 2017
Appellant, Nancy Thompson, appeals pro se from the decree denying
her exceptions to the court’s decision continuing guardianship and
appointing Debra G. Speyer, Esquire (Speyer), as guardian of the estate of
Appellant’s mother, Genevieve Thompson (Thompson). We affirm.
We take the following facts from our independent review of the record.
On December 8, 2006, the Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging filed a
petition for adjudication of incapacity and appointment of a plenary guardian
of the person and estate of Thompson. On February 5, 2007, the trial court
adjudicated Thompson a totally incapacitated person, and appointed Howard
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A04044-17
Soloman, Esquire, as plenary guardian of her estate. Soloman and Appellant
were appointed plenary co-guardians of Thompson’s person. Speyer
subsequently replaced Soloman as guardian of the estate and co-guardian of
the person.
On August 18, 2015, Appellant filed a petition for adjudication of
capacity, alleging that Thompson was no longer totally incapacitated. The
court held a hearing on October 14, 2015. On January 19, 2016, the court
entered a decree denying Appellant’s petition, and appointing her as
guardian of Thompson’s person and Speyer as guardian of the estate.
Thereafter, the trial court denied Appellant’s exceptions, and Appellant
timely appealed.
On March 28, 2016, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a
statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one days, and
cautioned her that any issue not raised in the statement would be deemed
waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); (see also Order, 3/28/16).
Appellant failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. 1 Therefore, Appellant has
waived her issues on appeal.
In Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, “from this date forward, in order to
____________________________________________
1
The court filed an opinion on May 4, 2016, in which it explained that
Appellant’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement rendered it unable to
address any potential appellate issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a); (see also
Opinion, 5/04/16).
-2-
J-A04044-17
preserve their claims for appellate review, Appellants must comply whenever
the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement
will be deemed waived.” Lord, supra at 309; see also Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii). More recently, this Court stated that “failure to comply with
the minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in automatic
waiver of the issues raised.” Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque
Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted).
Indeed, “our Supreme Court does not countenance anything less than
stringent application of waiver pursuant to Rule 1925(b)[.]” Id.
In this case, Appellant failed to file a statement of errors complained of
on appeal pursuant to the trial court’s order. (See Order, 3/28/16).
Therefore, Appellant has waived her issues, and this Court is precluded from
reviewing their merits. See Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., supra at
224. Thus, we affirm the decree of the trial court.2
Decree affirmed.
____________________________________________
2
We are cognizant that Appellant is proceeding pro se. It is well-settled,
however, that, “[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 litigant must comply with the
procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.”
Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034, 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(citation omitted).
-3-
J-A04044-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/29/2017
-4-