In Re: Estate of Destefano, D.
72 WDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 15, 2017Background
- Daniel L. DeStefano died July 22, 2012; Cindy Lou Baker received letters of administration Aug. 14, 2012. The decedent’s sole heir was his mother, Elizabeth I. DeStefano, who died Mar. 10, 2013. Jeanine Decker became Administratrix of Elizabeth’s estate.
- Baker (as Administratrix of Daniel’s estate) filed a First and Final Account covering Aug. 14, 2012–Jan. 5, 2015. Jeanine Decker (as Administratrix of Elizabeth’s estate and objector) filed objections May 18, 2015.
- A Master’s Report issued; following exceptions and oral argument the Orphans’ Court found the estate was mishandled by Baker and by attorney Thomas Ruth.
- The Orphans’ Court reduced Baker’s commission and Ruth’s fees, imposed multiple surcharges on Baker (vehicle loss, storage, tax-prep fee, loss of equipment value), ordered refunds/reimbursements to the estate, and removed Baker and Ruth from their roles (Order dated Dec. 8, 2016).
- The purported appellant filed a notice of appeal styled as "Estate of Daniel L. DeStefano." The Superior Court sua sponte considered standing and whether the appellant was aggrieved by the Orphans’ Court order.
- Superior Court concluded the Estate itself is not an aggrieved party (the reductions and surcharges ran against Baker and Ruth), so the Estate lacked standing to appeal; the appeal was quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the "Estate" have standing to appeal the Orphans’ Court order? | The Estate (via notice filed by attorney Ruth) appealed the Dec. 8, 2016 order. | Appellees argued only the Administratrix and attorney were aggrieved; the Estate was not adversely affected. | The Superior Court held the Estate lacked standing because it was not adversely affected; appeal quashed. |
| Is a prevailing party considered "aggrieved" for Pa.R.A.P. 501 purposes? | Appellant contested aspects of the order despite prevailing outcome. | Appellees relied on precedent that a prevailing party is not "aggrieved" and cannot appeal. | Court reaffirmed that a prevailing party is not aggrieved; disagreement with reasoning does not confer standing. |
| Can an appeal be brought in the name of an "estate" as a legal entity? | Appellant used the caption "Estate of Daniel L. DeStefano." | Appellees noted legal rules regarding who may appeal and procedural compliance. | Court observed there is no such legal entity as an "estate" for appeal purposes and emphasized only an aggrieved party may appeal. |
| Did failure to file a notice of appeal by the truly aggrieved parties affect appealability? | Appellant's notice filed by Ruth attempted appeal. | Appellees pointed out noncompliance with Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903(a) by Administratrix and Ruth. | Court noted the point but resolved appeal on standing grounds and quashed the appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Polo, 563 Pa. 218, 759 A.2d 372 (2000) (only an aggrieved party may appeal)
- In re Elliott’s Estate, 388 Pa. 321, 131 A.2d 357 (1957) (standing for appeals requires adverse effect)
- Ratti v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 758 A.2d 695 (Pa. Super. 2000) (prevailing party is not "aggrieved" and lacks standing to appeal)
- In re J.G., 984 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2009) (discussing "aggrieved" requirement under Pa.R.A.P. 501)
- Estate of Pendergrass, 26 A.3d 1151 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standing principles in appellate review)
- In re Harrisburg Tr. Co., 80 Pa. Super. 585 (1923) (observation that there is no such legal entity as an "estate" for certain procedural purposes)