The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-09-15 ]-A03019-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ' IN THE SUPER�R COUR:6 OEo m IN RE: ESTATE OF LOTTIE IW DIXON i pENNS`F�NIA � � o i -o r �n � � �^ � � � o i a - r nrn r �. m (D � o j '. Cn '. O O '� _J -� � 'D _rl 'T m �1 � � T I O �, r- m APPEAL OF: GEORGE F. DIXON, III AND - - � � � S � � RICHARD E. DIXON j - r � No. 591 MDA 2014 Appealfrom the OrderEntered March 10, 2014 In the CoOrphans' Court at No�21-07b0686d County BEFORE: MUNDY, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,� D. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, ].: FILED MAY 28, 2015 qppellants, George F. Dixon, III, and Richard Dixon, appeal the Orphans' Court's March 10, 2014 order sustaining in part and overruling in paR their objections to a first partial account of the Trust Under Revocable qgreement with Lottie Ivy Dixon (the "Trust"). We quash. The Settlor, Lottie Ivy Dixon (the '�Settlor"), executed the Lottie Ivy Dixon Revocable Trust (the "TrusY') on August 19, 1985. The Trust beneficiaries were the Settlor's four children, including Appellants. Settlor died on June 28, 2007. On June 26, 2013, Appellee/Trustee M&T Bank ("Trustee") filed a First and Partial Account of the Trust (the ��Account"). The " Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. � J-A03019-15 Account revealed $1,882,174.01 in principal and $929,323.73 in income was distributed to Settlor during her lifetime. The TrusYs only remaining asset was $11,486.72 in income. On July 26, 2013, Appellants filed seventeen objections to the Account. On Sepfember 13, 2013, Trustee filed a motion to strike the objections, arguing Appellants had no standing to challenge distributions made during the Settlor's lifetime because Trustee owed no du[y to Appellants until after her death. The orphans' court heard oral argument on October 25, 2013 and issued the order on appeal on March 10, 2014. The orphans' court overruled fifteen of Appellants' seventeen objections. It referred the matter to Trustee to provide an explanation for minor corrections concerning the distributions identified in the remaining two objections, after which the account could be confirmed. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on April 1, 2014. Trustee filed a motion to quash the appeal on May 8, 2014, arguing the March 10, 2014 is not a final, appealable order. Our first task, therefore, is to determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Rule 342 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an order confirming an account is appealable as of right. Pa.R.A.P. 342(a). The order on appeal did not precisely confirm the account. The orphans' court explained: Orphans' Court Rule 6.1(a) provides, in relevant part, that an account must specify '[t]he dates of all receipts, disbursements and distributions, the sources of the receipts, and the persons to whom disbursements and distributions are made - 2 - � ]-A03019-15 and the ur ose [hereof shall be stated ...' (emphasis added). Here, there are two substantial distributions is5�4 Z30 OOtland Dixon - Distribution' in the amounts of $ $167,700.00 with no explanation of the purpose of the distributions. In accordance with the Rules, the court will sustain [Appellants'] objections to these two entrieovide tan accounting and refer the matter back to M&T to p explanation for the purpose of those two distributions. Following Yhis minor correction, the accountin9 may be confirmed without the appointment of an auditor. Orphans' Court Opinion, 3/7/14, at 4 (bolded emphasis ours, underscoring added by the orphans' court).' As the orphans' court's opinion makes clear, the change was purely ministerial. Nonetheless, the orphans' court did no[ confirm the Account. Rather, it anticipated confirmation of a slightly revised account to be filed by the Trustee. Thus, the order on appeal is not final within the meaning of Rule 342(a)(1), nor does it fit under any other subsection of Rule 342(a). We therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.z ' Appellants represent that the Trustee made the correction aTheflre�vised revised account on May 15, 2014 (Appellants' Brief at 14). whether the orphans�court founld thereev s�'�ons�ac�Cept bleave any indication z We are cognizant that the issues briefed and argued in this appeal will arise again as soon as the orphans' court enters a final order confirming the revised account. The expense of judicial resources and duplicative effort on the part of counsel is reellantsblappeal. WThecrecordrdo1es not�expla nkwhy jurisdictional flaw in App Appellants failed to await an appealable final order. - 3 - ]-A03019-15 Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. J seph D. Seletyn, Es Prothonotary Date: 5/28/2015 - 4 -