In Re: Estate of Cherup, N., Appeal of: Cherup, L.
In Re: Estate of Cherup, N., Appeal of: Cherup, L. No. 409 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 22, 2017Background
- Naomi Cherup was placed under a guardianship; Smithfield Trust Company (Smithfield) was guardian of her estate and Lori Cherup (later) guardian of her person.
- Naomi died in 2015. The Register (Director) admitted to probate a November 5, 2008 will and issued letters testamentary to Lisa Cherup as executrix.
- Smithfield filed a final guardianship account petition proposing distribution to Lisa as executrix under the 2008 will; David Cherup contested, claiming later testamentary documents superseded the 2008 will.
- The orphans’ court initially entered a September 9, 2015 decree directing distribution to Lisa; David filed exceptions and a citation in the estate matter challenging Lisa’s letters.
- Lisa attempted to obtain a deemed denial of David’s exceptions by praecipe and had the Director enter judgment in her favor against Smithfield without notifying Smithfield.
- The orphans’ court struck that judgment and vacated the September 9, 2015 decree on February 23, 2016, leaving Smithfield to hold the assets pending resolution of whether a later testamentary instrument controlled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction over appeals from the February 23, 2016 order striking judgment and vacating distribution decree | Lisa: the order falls within interlocutory appeal rules (Pa.R.A.P. 311, 313, or 342), so the appeals are proper | Smithfield: the order is interlocutory/non-final and not appealable as of right; appeals must be quashed | Quashed: the order is interlocutory, not appealable as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 311 or 342 and does not meet collateral-order criteria under Pa.R.A.P. 313 |
| Whether Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2) (orders affecting possession/control of property) authorizes immediate appeal | Lisa: the February 23 order affected possession/control, so Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2) allows appeal | Smithfield: the order suspended distribution and left possession with Smithfield; it did not finally affect control, so 311(a)(2) is inapplicable | Denied: the order returned the parties to pre-judgment status and did not finally affect possession/control; 311(a)(2) inapplicable |
| Whether the collateral-order doctrine (Pa.R.A.P. 313) permits immediate appeal | Lisa: the order raises important rights that would be lost if review waited | Smithfield: the elements of Rule 313 are not met; any error can be reviewed after final order | Denied: appellant cannot show irreparable loss or that the issue is separable; final-judgment review is adequate |
| Whether Pa.R.A.P. 342 (orphans’ court interlocutory appeals) provides jurisdiction | Lisa: the order determined status of fiduciaries/beneficiaries or interest in property under Pa.R.A.P. 342 | Smithfield: the order did not determine status or interests; it vacated distribution and left the question open | Denied: the order did not determine status or property interests; Rule 342 inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Angelichio v. Myers, 110 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (general rule: Superior Court jurisdiction limited to final orders)
- McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank, 74 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (definition of final order under Pa.R.A.P. 341)
- United Parcel Serv. v. Hohider, 954 A.2d 13 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (order granting motion to strike judgment is generally not appealable as of right)
- Bailey v. RAS Auto Body, Inc., 85 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (interlocutory appeal categories and Rule references)
- True R.R. Assocs., L.P. v. Ames True Temper, Inc., 152 A.3d 324 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (prior interlocutory orders can be reviewed on appeal from final order)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243 (Pa.) (all three prongs of collateral-order rule must be met)
- Commonwealth v. Sabula, 46 A.3d 1287 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (application of collateral-order doctrine)