Estate of Brown, 30 A.3d 1200

Appellant Lorie Pearl, acting as plenary guardian for her incapacitated mother Alice Brown, is appealing a decree from the Delaware County Orphans’ Court.
Mother’s assets were dissipated from approximately $353,134 principal and $12,519 income to about $5,592 by end of 2009.
Appellant and Husband Kenneth Pearl used funds to purchase a Florida home (Florida Property) and later a Pennsylvania Oakdale Property for rental by Mother.
The trial court issued a December 8, 2010 decree surcharging Appellant $58,396.42, with $22,437 attributed to both Appellant and Husband and $35,959.42 to Appellant alone, and ordered certain reimbursements denied.
The court also held Husband liable under a constructive trust theory for unjust enrichment; Appellant challenged the surcharge against Husband and the overall reimbursement determinations.
Appellee did not raise standing to challenge Appellant’s standing to raise arguments on Husband’s behalf; this issue was raised serendipitously by the court and resolved in Appellant’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Appellant had standing to challenge surcharge against Husband	Pearl argues standing to challenge non-party surcharge.	Fogg did not object; standing not addressed.	Husband surcharge vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction over non-party.
Whether the trial court exceeded its authority by imposing a surcharge on Husband	Owners of funds benefited from improper distributions; surcharge appropriate.	surcharge on non-party without service improper.	Surcharge against Husband vacated; court exceeded authority.
Whether the denial of reimbursement for electricity and natural gas at Rodney Circle Property was proper	Charges were for Rodney Circle Property; should be reimbursed.	Evidence insufficient; bills not tied to Rodney Circle Property.	No reversal; denial sustained.
Whether the court properly calculated fair market rent and maintenance for Oakdale Property	Appellant challenges Appellee’s uncorroborated data.	Evidence admitted; no objected error.	Waived; affirmed on other grounds.
Whether Appellant waived remaining assertions by not raising them in 1925(b) statement	Issues not raised should not be waived.	Waiver applies for unraised issues.	Two remaining issues waived.

In re deYoung, 903 A.2d 1164 (Pa. 2006) (standing cannot be raised sua sponte; due process limitations)
Mayer v. Garman, 912 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2006) (proper process required for joinder of parties; writ of prohibition when court exceeds authority)
Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Horsham Twp., 963 A.2d 622 (Pa.Commw.2009) (standing may be waived by failure to object early)