Estate of Jennie P. Grados, Appeal of: Grados, S.

J-A13031-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF JENNIE P. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

GRADOS : PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: STEVEN P. GRADOS :

:

:

:

: No. 1175 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 15, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Orphans' Court at

No(s): 26-19-0832

BEFORE: OLSON, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 6, 2024

Steven P. Grados (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the decree entered

in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Orphans’ Court on September

15, 2023, which confirmed the final account of the estate of Jennie P. Grados

and directed distributions in accordance with the last will and testament of the

decedent.1 In light of Appellant’s failure to ensure this Court received a

complete record necessary for meaningful appellate review, and due to the

substantial defects in his brief, we dismiss this appeal.

The orphans’ court summarized the factual and procedural history of

this matter as follows:

The decedent, Jennie P. Grados[ (“Decedent”)], executed a

last will and testament dated March 12, 2009. She died on

____________________________________________

1 We note that this is Appellant’s third appeal in this case.

His first and second

appeals were filed at Nos. 810 WDA 2021 and 1311 WDA 2022, respectively,

and are discussed further infra.

J-A13031-24

October 28, 2019. An estate was opened on November 8, 2019[

(the “Estate”)], at which time Kathy M. Hawker [(“Kathy”)] and

Jennifer L. Russo [(“Jennifer”)] were appointed as co-executrixes

by the [Office of the] Register of Wills. Prior to Decedent’s death,

[Kathy] and [Jennifer] had also been agents under a durable

power of attorney [(“POA”)] … dated March 12, 2009. The

beneficiaries of the Estate are Decedent’s four children[:] Steven

P. Grados (Appellant)[;] co-executrices, Kathy … and Jennifer…[;]

and Michael F. Grados [(“Michael”)].

Though Appellant filed a “Petition to Contest the Will of

Jennie Grados” on September 15, 2020, he did not actually

challenge the validity of the 2009 will [or] the 2009 [POA].

Rather, Appellant’s principal objections concern[ed] certain real

estate transfers, contractual arrangements, expenditures,

accountings, and the disposition of his personal property from

approximately 2017 through … Decedent’s death in 2019.

From 1998 until 2017, Decedent resided in her own home

on Orchard Avenue in Belle Vernon, Westmoreland County.

Decedent also owned a farm in Fayette County[,] which she

conveyed to … Kathy [and her husband, William George Hawker,]

by deed dated July 18, 2017. On or about August 21, 2018,

Decedent’s Orchard Avenue home was also sold. Prior to the sale

of the home, the parties arranged for Michael … to remove any

personal property belonging to Appellant, as Appellant was

incarcerated at the time.6 After the sale of her home and until the

time of her death, Decedent resided with [Kathy] and [Jennifer],

alternating on a regular schedule between the two homes.

6 [Appellant] testified [at] the August 31, 2022[] hearing

that he was incarcerated from August of 2017 through early

2020. [Appellant], a former Pennsylvania State Trooper,

was convicted on charges of mail fraud and forging a federal

judicial order.

In 2017, Michael … filed a petition for appointment of a

guardian in the Orphans’ Court [Division of the Court] of …

Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. That

court conducted a hearing on the petition on October 16, 2017,

where [a] neurologist[,] Dr. Richard Kasdan[,] testified [as] to an

examination of Decedent he conducted on October 10, 2017.7

After the hearing, all four parties reached an agreement in the

guardianship matter in Westmoreland County, which was

memorialized by an order of court dated November 2, 2017.8 Per

-2-

J-A13031-24

this order, the Petition to Adjudicate Incapacity and for the

Appointment of an Emergency Guardian of the Person and Estate

of Jennie P. Grados was dismissed with prejudice. That court did

not make any finding of incapacity and no guardian was

appointed. Under other terms of the order, the farm property that

had been conveyed to Kathy … and her husband was conveyed to

the four siblings as tenants in common, and the estate of Jennie

Grados reimbursed the Hawkers the $28,000 purchase price.9

[Kathy and Jennifer], as agents under the [POA] dated March 12,

2009, were further ordered to file an annual accounting of all

transactions of Jennie Grados with the [Office of the] Register of

Wills … of Westmoreland County. [Kathy and Jennifer] retained

L. Christian DeDiana, Esq., a licensed Pennsylvania attorney (also

certified as an “elder care” attorney) and certified public

accountant, to prepare these annual accounts in compliance with

the Westmoreland County court’s order.

7 A transcript of D[r.] Kasdan’s testimony from the

Westmoreland County hearing was filed with the Fayette

County Clerk of Courts Office on October 20, 2022, as part

of the exhibits from the August 31, 2022[] hearing in

Fayette County, under objection from counsel for the Estate.

8 The court notes in the order that the parties reached an

agreement and placed the same on the record, with the

verbal consent of [Appellant] expressly provided to his

brother, Michael….

9 As Jennie Grados was still alive at the time of this order,

the estate referenced was in respect to the guardianship

proceedings, and not the Estate opened after her death in

Fayette County.

In or around February [of] 2019, DeDiana met with

Decedent, [Kathy], and [Jennifer] to discuss Decedent’s desire to

compensate [Kathy] and [Jennifer] for [her] living expenses and

for the care [Kathy] and [Jennifer] were providing to [her] while

she resided in their homes. DeDiana prepared two Lease

Agreements and two Family Care Agreements, one of each for

[Kathy] and [Jennifer]. The Lease[ Agreement]s were dated

February 12, 2019, and the Family Care Agreements were dated

April 3, 2019. The annual account prepared by DeDiana for the

period [of] November 2, 2018[,] through November 12, 2019,

included payments to [Kathy and Jennifer] pursuant to these

agreements.

-3-

J-A13031-24

At some point after the death of Decedent, Appellant filed a

petition for judicial review with the orphans’ court in

Westmoreland County. That court denied the petition by order

dated August 25, 2020, on the grounds that there had been no

determination of incapacity made, the request for a guardianship

was resolved by a consent agreement among the parties without

the appointment of a guardian, and the relief sought would involve

payments to or from the Estate in Fayette County over which the

Westmoreland court would have no jurisdiction.

Appellant then filed a “Petition to Contest the Will of Jennie

Grados” in Fayette County on September 15, 2020. Despite the

repeated recommendations of this court that Appellant should

retain counsel, Appellant elected to proceed pro se. This court

has had difficulty defining the issues because of Appellant’s

inartful pleadings, disregard for the rules, and the lack of legal

authority offered in support of his positions. Appellant’s original

September 15, 2020[] petition offer[ed] various allegations which

the court summarizes as follows:

1. Decedent was experiencing severe signs of

dementia in 2017, supported by the medical

opinion of Dr. Kasden, and was therefore not

capable of executing legal documents;

2. The conveyance of the Fayette County property to

[Kathy] and her husband was improper;

3. [Kathy] and [Jennifer] made various changes to

Decedent’s accounts for their own benefit; and

4. Decedent was not competent to enter into the

[Lease] and [Family] Care Agreements, which

benefited [Kathy] and [Jennifer] at the expense of

the Estate, and payments made under these

agreements along with various fees labeled as

“reimbursements” should be voided.

After Appellant’s petition was filed, the [co-]executrices filed

a “First and Final Account” on December 30, 2020. The court held

a status conference on February 19, 2021, and after it became

clear that Appellant was challenging various inter vivos

transactions and not the will itself, the court granted Appellant “an

additional 20 days in which to resubmit a claim in conformity with

the local rules and the Pennsylvania Rules of Court.” []Order[,

2/23/21 (single page).] Appellant then filed objections to the

-4-

J-A13031-24

accounting on March 3, 2021. The parties filed responses but

never requested a hearing. On June 9, 2021, this court entered

the order and opinion that was the subject of the first appeal. This

court denied Appellant’s claim regarding the personal property he

stored on Decedent’s property and directed the Estate to

supplement the record with additional evidence concerning the

[Lease Agreements] and [Family] Care Agreements within thirty

(30) days.

The Superior Court held that this court’s June 9, 2021[]

order did not qualify as a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 and

was not otherwise appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 342, quashing the

appeal and remanding back to the orphans’ court for further

proceedings, with the recommendation that this court schedule a

hearing on Appellant’s objections.[2]

That hearing took place on August 31, 2022. Appellant

continued to represent himself despite the court’s

recommendation that he retain counsel. During the hearing, the

court referred to three documents filed by Appellant as the source

of his objections in this matter.12 The court stressed to Appellant

multiple times during the hearing that this would be his only

opportunity to present any evidence in support of his objections,

and pointed out to Appellant that he was about to rest his case

without addressing essential elements of his claims. The court

further noted that the pleadings Appellant filed did not set forth

many of the claims or legal theories that Appellant appeared to be

arguing or for which Appellant offered evidence at the hearing.

12 These three documents consisted of the original Petition

to Contest the Will of Jennie Grados, filed on September 15,

2020; the Objections to the Accounting of the Estate of

Jennie Grados, filed on March 3, 2021; and the Petitioner’s

Correspondence to Response to Petition filed by Attorney

Timothey Maata [sic] filed on April 12, 2021.

Appellant indicated that he wanted to admit the transcript

of Dr. Kasdan’s testimony from the October 16, 2017[]

proceedings in Westmoreland County but had not yet been able

to obtain the transcript. At the close of the hearing, the court

granted Appellant ten (10) days to obtain and file the certified

transcript from Westmoreland County and twenty (20) days to

____________________________________________

2 See In re Estate of Grados, 277 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Super. April 25, 2022)

(unpublished memorandum).

-5-

J-A13031-24

submit any legal authority as to whether an undue influence

argument would apply to the [Lease Agreements] and [Family]

Care Agreements and whether such arguments were properly

raised.

The court entered a separate order dated September 2,

2022, denying [Appellant’s] Motion to Disqualify Counsel. On

September 9, 2022, Appellant submitted the Kasdan hearing

transcript from the Westmoreland County proceedings, which

were [sic] filed with the other hearing exhibits on October 20,

2022. Appellant submitted a “Response to Directive by Judge

Leskinen Pursuant to Hearing Held August 31, 2022[.”] This

document was dated September 14, 2022, but was not filed until

November 2, 2022. This may have been submitted in response to

the court’s request for legal authority, though the document

contains no references to any case law or statutes. On September

23, 2022, counsel for the Estate filed a motion to exclude

deposition, motion to preclude claim, and a response to

[Appellant’s] claim. This court entered an order (dated October

11, 2022, and filed the next day), finding that Appellant … had not

met his burden of establishing a confidential relationship,

substantial benefit, or weakened intellect. With regard to his

personal property, any claims for such property by

Appellant/Objector would be against his sisters and not against …

Decedent’s Estate, which was not in existence at the time the

items were removed from Decedent’s property. Further[,] the

statute of limitations on a conversion claim had already expired.

The court dismissed the objections and ordered the Estate to

prepare an updated final account and decree of distribution. [An]

opinion in support of the October 11, 2022[] order was filed on

October 20, 2022.

Appellant filed an appeal from the October 11, 2022[] order, which

was docketed at No. 1311 WDA 2022. The Superior Court

quashed that appeal by per curiam order filed on September 8,

2023, without prejudice to Appellant’s right to appeal a final order

once it was entered. The Estate filed an updated final account on

September 14, 2023. The court entered a decree on September

15, 2023, confirming the accounting and directing the distribution

of assets. Appellant did not file objections to the final accounting

or to the decree….

Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”), 12/12/23, at 1-8 (cleaned up; some footnotes

omitted).

-6-

J-A13031-24

On September 29, 2023, Appellant filed a timely appeal from the

orphans’ court’s decree confirming the final accounting of the Estate.3 The

orphans’ court did not direct Appellant to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Nonetheless,

Appellant filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on October 11, 2023. On appeal,

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

1. Attorney Timothy M. Maatta, counsel for the co-executrixes,

who also represented the decedent, obtained confidential

information from the decedent and then used that information

to financially benefit his current clients, the co-executrixes.

Attorney Maatta also failed to take appropriate precautions

when dealing with a client with diminished mental capacity and

failed to take precautions to safe keep his client’s ([the]

decedent[]) property.

2. An active court order[] dated November 2, 2017, issued by

Judge Scherer of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland

County, Orphan’s Court Division, was violated by Attorney

Timothy M. Maatta, Attorney Christian DeDiana and the co-

executrixes.

3. Judge Steve Leskinen chose to disregard the credible testimony

of Pennsylvania board[-]certified neurologist, D[r.] Kasdan,

who described in detail the decedent’s severe cognitive

impairment. Instead, Judge Leskinen chose to somehow

bypass D[r.] Kasdan’s testimony with testimony of Attorney

DeDiana who is not qualified to evaluate anyone, while

personally obstructing … Appellant from obtaining relevant

medical records of the decedent.

4. [Lease Agreements] and [Family C]are [A]greements were

entered into while the decedent was mentally incapacitated and

in violation of an existing court order as described above.

____________________________________________

3 See Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(1) (providing that an appeal may be taken as of right

from an order confirming an account or directing distribution for an estate).

-7-

J-A13031-24

5. Judge … Leskinen failed to have the co-executrixes or counsel

submit evidence to support the withdrawal of thousands of

dollars from the estate of the decedent and improperly labeled

as “reimbursements and expenses” by Attorney DeDiana,

which is a direct violation of #4(b) of the court order described

in #2 above. [] Appellant previously made Judge Leskinen

aware of this fact through court filings. (Appendix E)

6. Gas royalties as listed in the decedent[’]s will have not been

properly accounted for by Attorney DeDiana[,] which Judge …

Leskinen was also made previously aware of by … Appellant

through court filings.

7. Judge … Leskinen heard testimony of Jennifer…, a co-executrix,

who admitted in court on August 31, 2022, and heard by …

Appellant’s witness, that she took possession of a motor

vehicle, 2005 Polaris 90cc ATV quad valued at $1000.00 and

titled in … Appellant’s name, without any legal authority to do

so and did nothing in response.

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

At the outset, we note that appellate briefs and reproduced records must

materially conform with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of

Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may quash or dismiss an

appeal if the appellant fails to substantially comply with these Rules. Id.4

“Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se

litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the

____________________________________________

4 When considering whether the appropriate action should be quashal or

dismissal of an appeal, this Court has stated the following:

Quashal is usually appropriate when the order below was

unappealable, the appeal was untimely, or the Court otherwise

lacked jurisdiction…. [W]here the problem is numerous defects in

Appellant’s brief, the appropriate disposition is dismissal.

Bronson v. Kerestes, 40 A.3d 1253, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal

citations omitted).

-8-

J-A13031-24

contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must,

to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training

will be his undoing.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super.

2010) (internal citation omitted).

Based on our review of the record, it appears that Appellant continues

to flout this Court’s Rules of Appellate Procedure. First, Appellant’s pro se

brief contains numerous defects. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (discussing the

required content of appellate briefs and addressing specific requirements for

each subsection of the brief). Appellant failed to set forth the appropriate

scope of review and standard of review, as required by Rule 2111. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3).5 Moreover, he failed to concisely state the issues to be

resolved on appeal, as required by Rule 2116. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“The

statement of the questions involved must state concisely the issues to be

resolved, expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without

unnecessary detail. The statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary

question fairly comprised therein….”). Here, Appellant’s Statement of the

Questions Involved spans two pages and consists of seven numbered

paragraphs. See Appellant’s Brief at 4-5. Only three of those numbered

paragraphs, however, contain alleged errors of the orphans’ court. See id. at

____________________________________________

5 We acknowledge that Appellant’s Brief contains a section titled “Statement

of the Scope and Standard of Review.” See Appellant’s Brief at 3. However,

this section contains factual allegations and legal argument, rather than a

statement of the proper scope and standard of review to be applied by this

Court. See id.

-9-

J-A13031-24

¶¶ 3, 5, 7. The other four paragraphs merely contain factual averments and

unsupported legal conclusions. See id. at ¶¶ 1, 2, 4, 6.

Appellant’s brief also fails to comply with Rule 2119(a), which mandates

that “[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are

questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part—in distinctive

type or in type distinctively displayed—the particular point treated therein,

followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed

pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Contrarily, the 13-page argument section of

Appellant’s brief does not contain a single subsection or heading to correspond

with the questions presented and contains very little legal analysis in support

of Appellant’s position. See Appellant’s Brief at 15-27.

Additionally, Appellant failed to file a designation of the parts of the

record he intended to reproduce, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2154(a), nor did he

file a reproduced record concurrently with his appellate brief, in compliance

with Pa.R.A.P. 2186(a). In fact, to date, no reproduced record has been filed

by Appellant. See Pa.R.A.P. 2152 (designating the required contents of the

reproduced record); Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355, 357 (Pa. Super.

2000) (“Compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2152-

2154 regarding contents of reproduced records on appeal is mandatory, not

directory.”).

Even if we were to overlook Appellant’s failure to file a reproduced

record and determine that the defects in his brief were not substantial enough

to impede our review, his lack of compliance with the foregoing Rules is

- 10 -

J-A13031-24

compounded by the fact that he failed to order the notes of testimony from

the August 31, 2022 hearing. See Correspondence from Fayette County

Register of Wills Office, 12/13/23, at 1 (indicating that Appellant inquired

about the transcript, but “after he found out how much it would cost him[, he]

never requested it”). It is well settled that Appellant has the burden to

produce a complete record for appellate review. In re O’Brien, 898 A.2d

1075, 1082 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“It is an appellant’s duty to insure [sic] that

the certified record contains all documents necessary for appellate review.”).

The failure to assure that the certified record is sufficient to conduct a

meaningful review warrants disposing of the appeal without reaching the

merits. See Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622, 624 (Pa. 1993) (“[W]here the

appellant is remiss in fulfilling the duty to provide a record which is sufficient

to permit meaningful appellate review as is the case here, the appeal must be

quashed.”) (citation omitted).

In reaching its September 15, 2023 decision, the orphans’ court relied

heavily on the evidence (of lack thereof) and testimony produced by the

parties at the August 31, 2022 hearing on Appellant’s objections to the final

accounting. Regarding Appellant’s apparent claims of undue influence, the

orphans’ court opined, in part:

Appellant offered the testimony of Deborah Bruni, a licensed

practical nurse (LPN) for thirty-four years as evidence that there

were less expensive alternatives available to Decedent than under

the [Lease Agreements] and [Family] Care Agreements.

Appellant did not provide a curriculum vitae for Ms. Bruni. Bruni

testified that she had experience working with the Medicare PACE

program, which she said provides various programs and services

- 11 -

J-A13031-24

to people suffering from dementia. Bruni offered testimony on a

number of topics, including … Decedent’s mental status in 2017,

whether Decedent would have been eligible for PACE or other

similar services, and the reasonableness of the charges paid to

[Kathy] and [Jennifer] under the [Lease Agreements] and

[Family] Care Agreements.

For a variety of reasons, the court did not find Bruni credible

in her testimony. Bruni acknowledged that she had not confirmed

whether Decedent, who had significant assets and regular income,

would have been eligible to receive the services Bruni described

at no cost or a reduced cost. Bruni offered no evidence of

comparable costs to support her contention that the amounts paid

to [Kathy] and [Jennifer] were “exorbitant” as compared to

equivalent services that may have been available. Moreover,

though Bruni was proffered for her experience as an elder care

nurse to opine as to the reasonableness of the financial

arrangements at issue, Bruni is Appellant’s girlfriend[,] and they

are involved in a romantic relationship.

The Estate offered the testimony of … DeDiana, a licensed

Pennsylvania attorney, a certified elder law attorney, and [CPA],

who was retained to prepare the annual accounting required under

the Westmoreland County consent order and also prepared the

[Lease Agreements] and [Family] Care Agreements. After the

death of Decedent, Attorney Maatta also retained DeDiana to

prepare the accounting for the Estate[]. DeDiana testified that

Decedent’s income and assets would have rendered her ineligible

for many of the services Bruni referenced unless Decedent was

willing to private[ly] pay out of pocket for the cost and further,

that Bruni appeared to be confusing some of the services offered

through PACE with services available through the Medicaid Waiver

Programs.

DeDiana testified that he met with Decedent in early 2019,

who indicated that she wished to live with her daughters and to

compensate them for her housing and care. DeDiana testified that

when he met Decedent, he did not observe any hearing problems,

that she actively participated in the discussion, and he did not

observe any signs that would indicate incapacity or incompetence.

At the time, Decedent and her daughters were in an arrangement

where she spent four days each week with [Kathy] in her Fayette

County home and three days each week with [Jennifer] in her

Washington County home, and Decedent appeared to be satisfied

with this arrangement.

- 12 -

J-A13031-24

DeDiana testified that he had experience preparing rental

and care agreements and described in detail the process by which

he researched and arrived at the fair market value of the housing

and services [Kathy] and [Jennifer] provided. DeDiana referred

to publicly available information on rental housing in the area

where each of the two daughters resided, along with current rates

for comparable in-home services from local agencies. DeDiana’s

testimony that he was solely responsible for setting the

reimbursement amounts in the [Lease Agreements] and [Family]

Care Agreements was uncontroverted, and Appellant offered no

evidence challenging any specific charges. The court found

DeDiana’s testimony on these issues to be credible and

persuasive.

None of the parties dispute the fact that Decedent required

supportive care in the months prior to her death. Appellant’s

position appears to be that Decedent could have remained in her

home with in-home services, but [he] offered no credible evidence

as to whether such an arrangement would have resulted in a

reduced cost to Decedent. This line of reasoning also fails to

consider Decedent’s wishes. Decedent had the option during her

life to choose where she lived and what services she received, and

if she chose to spend her money on a more expensive alternative

to the detriment of her residual estate, it was her right to make

those choices.

Ultimately, the credible evidence shows that [Kathy] and

[Jennifer] were compensated at a fair market value for the

housing and services they provided during the time [Decedent]

required supportive care. This did not result in any substantial

benefit or gift to [Kathy] and [Jennifer] for the purposes of

establishing undue influence.

TCO at 10-13 (cleaned up).

As to Appellant’s alleged errors regarding the final accounting of the

Estate and the annual accounting prepared by DeDiana for the period of

November 2018 through November 2019, the orphans’ court explained:

The court considered the objections Appellant filed … to the

original First and Final Account … and considered argument related

to the accountings filed in the Westmoreland County guardianship

matter. Appellant has had ample opportunity to litigate those

- 13 -

J-A13031-24

documents and to present any relevant testimony or other

evidence in support of his objections. The September 14, 2023

final accounting merely incorporated the findings the court had

already made. As far as any arguments regarding the form of the

Westmoreland County accountings or the … final accounting of the

Estate, or any charges for reimbursements and expenses

contained in those documents, Appellant did not address these

matters at the hearing, nor did he offer evidence to support his

objections[. T]herefore[,] they are deemed waived.

Id. at 13 (cleaned up).

The orphans’ court further stated that Appellant presented no argument,

testimony, or other evidence on the issue regarding the use of natural gas

royalties; thus, it deemed this claim waived. Id. at 14. Finally, regarding

Appellant’s concerns regarding the disposition of various items of personal

property, the orphans court determined that

[t]he uncontroverted evidence presented at the hearing clearly

showed that any disposition of items belonging to Appellant took

place not later than 2018, well before … Decedent’s death. []

Decedent’s Estate was not in existence at the time of disposition

of these items, and thus any claim for conversion would be against

Appellant’s sisters, not against the Estate. The statute of

limitations relating to conversion has already run with respect to

these items.

Id.

Appellant’s entire argument essentially attacks the orphans’ court’s

credibility and weight determinations regarding the testimony produced at the

August 31, 2022 hearing, as well as its alleged failure to require evidence to

justify certain disbursements from the Estate. See Appellant’s Brief at 15-27.

“When reviewing a decree entered by the [o]rpahns’ [c]ourt, this Court must

determine whether the record is free from legal error and the court’s factual

- 14 -

J-A13031-24

findings are supported by the evidence.” In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010, 1018

(Pa. Super. 2016). Additionally, we will not reverse the orphans’ court’s

credibility determinations absent an abuse of that discretion. Id. Since the

notes of testimony are not included in the certified record transmitted to this

Court on appeal, the certified record is deficient and we cannot engage in

meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1191(d) (“If the appellant fails to

take the action required by these rules and the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial

Administration for the preparation of the transcript, the appellant court may

take such action as it deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the

appeal.”); In re R.N.F., 52 A.3d 361, 363 (Pa. Super. 2012) (dismissing

appeal from decree terminating parental rights where absence of a crucial

transcript precluded meaningful appellate review).

Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal from the September 15,

2023 decree confirming the final accounting of the Estate of Jennie P. Grados.

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 8/6/2024

- 15 -