Estate of Genevieve Thompson
Estate of Genevieve Thompson No. 755 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- In 2006 the Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging petitioned to adjudicate Genevieve Thompson totally incapacitated and to appoint a plenary guardian of her person and estate.
- In 2007 the court adjudicated Thompson totally incapacitated and appointed Howard Soloman as guardian of the estate and Nancy Thompson (appellant) and Soloman as co-guardians of the person; Soloman was later replaced by Debra G. Speyer as guardian of the estate and co-guardian of the person.
- In August 2015 Nancy filed a petition contesting Thompson’s continued total incapacity and seeking adjudication of capacity.
- After a hearing, on January 19, 2016 the court denied Nancy’s petition, continued the guardianship, appointed Nancy guardian of the person and Speyer guardian of the estate, and later denied Nancy’s exceptions.
- The trial court ordered Nancy to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; she failed to do so, and the Superior Court held that failure waived appellate issues and affirmed the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson is no longer totally incapacitated | Nancy argued Thompson regained capacity and the guardianship should be terminated | Trial court and guardians maintained incapacity and continued guardianship | Trial court denied the petition on the merits; but appeal not reached because of waiver |
| Whether the trial court properly appointed Speyer as guardian of the estate | Nancy challenged continued appointment of Speyer | Court maintained appointment as appropriate | Appointment upheld by decree (merits not reviewed on appeal due to waiver) |
| Whether Nancy’s exceptions and appeal are reviewable | Nancy proceeded pro se and did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement as ordered | Court argued failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) waives issues on appeal | Superior Court held Nancy waived issues by failing to file the Rule 1925(b) statement and affirmed the decree |
| Whether pro se status excuses procedural noncompliance | Nancy implicitly relied on pro se status | Court and Superior Court noted pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules | Pro se status did not excuse failure to file the Rule 1925(b) statement; waiver applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (establishes that issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement are waived)
- Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to comply with minimal requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) results in automatic waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2015) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules; pro se status confers no special benefit)