From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Estate of Holland

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 13, 2018
No. J-A17022-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2018)

Opinion

J-A17022-18 No. 1747 WDA 2017

08-13-2018

IN RE: ESTATE OF SANDRA HOLLAND APPEAL OF: JAMES HOLLAND


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Dated November 2, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 02-15-07705 BEFORE: OTT, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.:

James Holland appeals from the order entered November 2, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings and found that his sister, Christine Stamper, has standing as a beneficiary to petition for his removal as executor of the estate of their mother, Sandra Holland ("Estate"). In that same order, the Orphans' Court nevertheless denied Stamper's petition for Holland's removal. Holland now complains the Orphans' Court erred in denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings, taking testimony on the issue of standing, and determining his sister had standing to file the Petition to Remove. Because the Petition to Remove was denied, we conclude Holland is not an aggrieved party, and dismiss the appeal.

Due to the present procedural posture of the case, we find the issue of Stamper's standing decided in the November 2, 2017, order, is not appealable. Holland argues the issue is appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342(5) as the grant of standing confirms Stamper's status as a beneficiary under the Will. However, since Stamper's petition to remove him as executor was denied, he is no longer an aggrieved party. Rather, we conclude the issue of whether Stamper is a beneficiary under the Will is more properly decided in other proceedings involving the Estate's administration, such as a declaratory judgment action to interpret paragraph 4 of the Will or objections filed to an account, to which Stamper would be entitled to notice of the filing as a potential beneficiary.

See N.A.M. v. M.P.W., 168 A.3d 256, 260 (Pa. Super. 2017) ("[T]he appealability of an order goes directly to the jurisdiction of the [c]ourt[.]").

See Pa.R.A.P. 342(5) ("An appeal may be taken as of right from the following orders of the Orphans' Court Division.... An order determining the status of fiduciaries, beneficiaries, or creditors in an estate, trust, or guardianship[.]").

See Pa.R.A.P. 501 ("Except where the right of appeal is enlarged by statute, any party who is aggrieved by an appealable order, or a fiduciary whose estate or trust is so aggrieved, may appeal therefrom."), see also In re Gross , 382 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa. 1978) ("[A]n actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review[.]").

Since Holland was successful in defeating the petition to remove him as executor, we need not reach the issue of whether the Orphans' Court erred in taking testimony on the issue of standing rather than deciding the matter solely on the pleadings. See Pa.R.C.P. 1034.

Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/13/2018


Summaries of

In re Estate of Holland

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 13, 2018
No. J-A17022-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2018)
Case details for

In re Estate of Holland

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: ESTATE OF SANDRA HOLLAND APPEAL OF: JAMES HOLLAND

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 13, 2018

Citations

No. J-A17022-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2018)