The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-05-13 (2),; J-A23007-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION -SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED, Appellee APPEAL OF: Appeal from the Order Entered December 13,c+2~~ ~ ~ In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland ~b~ty ~ ~ m Orphans' Court at No(s): 21-86-398 ; ~ ~ N ; IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, ~ ~ ~ N O T""., a ~ -o m ~, ~ Appellant ~ No. ~~~ 012~ m 2 x V: 7c ~ o 0 BEFORE: STEVENS, P.J., BENDER, ]., and GANTMAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 19, 2012 Appellant, Robert M. Mumma, II, challenges the following order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2011, upon the recommendation of the Auditor in this case it is hereby ordered that the Money Market Account of D E Distribution Corporation currently maintained at M & T Bank having an account number ending in 5251 shall be released and M & T Bank is hereby direct[ed] to disburse, by wire transfer, the entire balance to D E Distribution Corporation's checking account at Fulton Bank. It is further ordered that the sum of $125,000.00 from the accounts of the Mumma Realty Associates I be distributed to the Trust established under the Will of Robert M. Mumma and that this amount shall be a credit to any future distributions to which the said Trust established under the Will of Robert M. Mumma shall be entitled. a~ J-A23007-12 Order filed 12/14/11.1 Finding that this order of partial distribution is interlocutory in nature, we quash the appeal. Appellant suggests that we have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 742. Appellant's brief (unpaginated). That Rule states: The Superior Court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from frnal orders of the courts of common pleas, regardless of the nature of the controversy or the amount involved, except such classes of appeals as are by any provision of this chapter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the Commonwealth Court. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742 (emphasis added). See also Pennsy Supply, Znc, v. Mumma, 921 A.2d 1184, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742). Morgan disputes that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Morgan's brief at 8. 1 Robert M. Mumma, Sr. died on April 12, 1986, leaving a will that established a marital trust and a residual trust. He named his wife, Barbara Mumma, and a daughter, Lisa M. Morgan, as the two trustees of both trusts and co-executrixes of his estate. Mrs. Mumma and Morgan filed a final accounting for Mumma, Sr.'s estate in 2004. Robert Mumma, II ('Appellant") filed numerous motions and objections to the accounts. The court-appointed auditor has presided over forty days of hearings in this matter, and conducted conferences pertaining to the subject of the December 14, 2011 order. Following those conferences, the Auditor issued an interim report on December 9, 2011, recommending as follows: [T]hat $125,000.00 be distributed to the Trust and that such distribution be a credit to any future distributions. Because the parties cannot agree on their respective shares and no party, beneficiary, shareholder, or partner petitioned for a distribution, other than the Trustee, the parties must be content to await the final decision of the court in the audit of the accounts. Auditors Interim Report and Request for Orders, 1•tled 12/9/11. -2- J-A23007-12 Asa prefatory matter, we observe: "The appealability of an order directly implicates the jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order." Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2009). °[T]his Court has the power to inquire at any time, sua sponte, whether an order is appealable." Id.; Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd., 915 A.2d 668, 673 (Pa. Super. 2007). Pennsylvania law makes clear: [A]n appeal may be taken from: (i) a final order or an order certified as a final order (Pa.R.A.P. 341); (2) an interlocutory order as of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311); (3) an interlocutory order by permission (Pa.R.A.P. 312, 1311, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b)); or (4) a collateral order (Pa.R.A.P. 313). Stah/ v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 485 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007) (quoting Pace v. Thomas Jefferson University Hosp., 717 A.2d 539, 540 (Pa. Super. 1998) (internal citations omitted)). Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 defines "final orders" and states: Rule 341. Final Orders; Generally (a) General rule. Except as prescribed in subdivisions (d), and (e) of this rule, an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of an administrative agency or lower court. (b) Definition of final order. A final order is any order that: (1) disposes of all claims and of all parties; or (2) is expressly defined as a final order by statute; or (3) is entered as a final order pursuant to subdivision (c) of this rule. (c) Determination of finality. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim ... the trial court ... may enter a final order as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims ... only upon an express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case. Such an order becomes appealable when entered. In the absence of such a determination and entry of a final order, any order ... that adjudicates fewer than all the claims ... shall not constitute a final order.... -3- J-A23007-12 Pa.R.A.P. 341(a)-(c). Under Rule 341, a final order can be one that disposes of all the parties and all the claims, is expressly defined as a final order by statute, or is entered as a final order pursuant to the trial court's determination under Rule 341(c). Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1)-(3); In re N.B., 817 A.2d 530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2003). Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 342 provides: Rule 342. Orphans' Court Orders Appealable. Orders Determining Realty, Personalty and Status of Individuals or Entities. Orders Making Distribution An order of the Orphans' Court Division making a distribution, or determining an interest in realty or personalty or the status of individuals or entities, shall be immediately appealable: (1) upon a determination of finality by the Orphans' Court Division, or (2) as otherwise provided by Chapter 3 of these rules. Pa.R.A.P. 342 (emphasis added). In re Estate of Cel/a, 12 A.3d 374, 377-78 (Pa. Super. 2010), reargument denied, Oct. 8, 2010).2 In estate cases, this Court has recognized that confirmation of a personal representative's final account and final distribution is the proper order from which a party can appeal. In re Estate of Allen, 960 A.2d 470, 471-72 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing In re Estate of Cherwinski, 856 A.2d 165, 166-67 (Pa. Super. 2004)). "In order to avoid piecemeal litigation, no appeal will be permitted from an interlocutory order unless specifically provided for by statute. Otherwise, an appeal must be taken from a final order." In re Estate of Quinn, 805 A.2d 541, 542 (Pa. Super. 2002). 2 Cel/a involved an appeal from an order expressly deemed final by the lower court. -4- . J-A23007-12 Here, the final account has been filed, but the court appointed Auditor has yet to rule upon the objections thereto, thus there has been no final distribution or confirmation of the final account. Additionally, the December 14, 2011 order directs only a partial distribution of the assets of the estate, in no way disposes of all claims and all parties, is not expressly defined as a final order by statute, and was not entered as a final order. Thus, it does not constitute a final order under Rule 341(b). Nor may Appellant's challenge to the December 14, 2011 order be considered an interlocutory appeal as of right or an interlocutory appeal by permission, since the order does not fall under Rules 311 or 312. Neither will the order be considered collateral under Rule 313. Lastly, no determination of finality occurred pursuant to Rule 342.3 As such, this appeal must be quashed as interlocutory. Appeal Quashed. Judgment Entered. Deputy rothonotary Date: 10/19/2012 3 Rule 342 was amended on December 29, 2011, shortly after the filing of Judge Oler's December 14, 2011 order, but those amendments did not take effect until February 13, 2012. -5-